LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

GIFT  OF 

MRS.   MARY  WOLFSOHN 

IN   MEMORY  OF 

HENRY  WOLFSOHN 

IhrJll^lrM^^ 


I 


The  Martyrdom 


OF 


ESUS 


NAZARETH 


A   HISTORIC-CRITICAL  TREATISE  ON   THE   LAST 
CHAPTERS    OF   THE    GOSPEL. 


BY  DR.  ISAAC  M.  WISE. 


DEO  nDN      ~l 


Only  truth  in  the  name  of  Jehovah." — a  Chronicles,  xvii.    15. 


OFFICE  OF  THE   AMERICAN   ISRAELITE, 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 


PREFACE. 


EEFACES  are  tedious,  and  I  will  be  brief.  I  would 
not  write,  if  it  was  not  for  the  term  standpoint,  about 
which  something  must  be  said,  to  facilitate  a  correct  un- 
derstanding of  this  treatise. 

I  have  dedicated  this  volume  to  the  great  Parisian 
jurist  and  democratic  patriot,  ISAAC  ADOLPH  CREMIEUX, 
not  merely  because  I  hold  that  illustrious  gentleman  in  the 
highest  esteem,  both  as  a  scholar  and  a  philanthropist ;  but 
also  because  in  him  the  Jew  of  the  nineteenth  century  is 
personified.  It  is  the  standpoint  of  universal  benevolence, 
of  broad  and  liberal  principles,  of  pure  and  exalted  hu- 
manitarianism  based  upon  profound  and  sublime  principles 
of  ethical  religion.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  all  Jews 
have  arrived  at  this  lofty  standpoint;  I  merely  maintain! 
those  who  have  kept  pace  with  the  progressive  elements  of 
the  century  have  reached  that  altitude  of  thought  and 
principle. 

This  Isaac  Adolph  Cremieux  was  born  in  France  in  the 
beginning  of  this  century.  Like  the  author  of  this  treatise, 
when  a  poor  boy,  a  little  barefooter,  he  was  mortified  and 


scorned  by  petulent  fellows,  because  he  was  the  son  of  Jew- 
ish parents.  But  in  his  upward  march  to  glory,  Cremieux 
loft  all  of  them  in  the  background,  stood  twice  at  the  head 
of  the  French  Eepublic  as  the  high-priest  of  justice,  and 
is  this  day  a  prominent  member  of  the  National  As- 
sembly, always  true  to  the  democratic  and  humanitarian 
principles,  without  showing  in  his  long  and  eventful  career 
of  usefulness  any  other  than  the  loftiest  and  purest  stand- 
point of  the  man  and  the  patriot. 

This  is  the  point  the  author  wishes  to  define.  On  numer- 
ous occasions  he  has  been  told  that  people  are  anxious  to 
read  what  he  writes  on  subjects  in  the  New  Testament, 
because  they  wish  to  learn  what  is  said  about  them  from 
the  Jewish  standpoint.  This  is  a  mistake.  The  author 
who  now  speaks  to  you  is  a  Jew  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
whose  motto  is,  "  The  world  is  my  country  and  love  is  my 
religion;"  whose  people  are  all  of  God's  children;  and 
whose  standpoint  in  philosophy,  science,  and  criticism  is  as 
purely  objective  and  as  free  of  every  prejudice  or  bias  as 
long  years  of  reading,  research,  and  traveling  make  a  hu- 
man being.  He  wears  no  sectarian  shackels,  stands  under 
no  local  bias,  and  obeys  no  mandates  of  any  particular 
school.  Whatever  he  says  or  has  said  on  subjects  contain- 
ed in  the  New  Testament,  in  order  to  be  understood  cor- 
rectly, must  be  examined  from  the  only  standpoint  of  reason. 

The  author  takes  the  liberty  to  add  that  he  claims  orig- 
inalty  for  the  ideas  presented  in  this  treatise.  He  borrows 
from  none.  All  passages  from  the  ancient  rabbinical  liter- 
ature, quoted  in  this  treatise,  have  been  selected  and  trans- 
lated from  the  originals  by  him,  and  for  this  volume,  with- 
out aid  or  support  of  any  body.  While  Strauss,  Eenan, 
Wislicenus,  and  the  English  writers  on  kindred  subjects 
obtained  their  knowledge  of  ancient  rabbinical  literature 


from  some  translated  abstracts,  compiled  under  various 
prejudicial  circumstances,  and  in  many  cases  teeming  with 
errors,  the  author  has  had  full  access  to  the  originals,  and 
has  made  the  best  use  of  this  privilege  as  far  as  his  erudi- 
tion reaches.  This  will  explain  the  opinions  advanced  by 
the  author  contrary  to  some  of  Strauss,  Eenan,  and  the 
others,  whose  information  on  that  age  and  its  spirit  was 
deficient  and  often  erroneous. 

In  conclusion,  he  begs  permission  to  say  that  his  sole 
object  in  writing  is  truth.  He  aims  at  no  literary  reputa- 
tion, no  income,  no  position  in  society;  he  has  but  this  one 
ambition,  viz.,  to  tell  the  truth  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge. 
If  he  fails  in  this,  in  any  particular  point,  it  is  on  account 
of  his  mental  deficiencies,  which  God  may  forgive  him;  the 

critic  never  will. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGES. 

INTRODUCTION 9 

CHAPTER  I. 
THE  SECRET  CONCLAVE. 

1.  The  Conspirators,  15 

2.  The  Time,        -  18 

3.  The  Situation,       -  21 

4.  Political  Necessity  and  Jewish  Ethics,        •  25 

CHAPTER  II. 
THE  LAST  SUPPER. 

1.  The  Two  Accounts,  30 

2.  The  Messengers  and  the  Charge,        -  32 

3.  The  Opening  of  the  Supper,  36 

4.  Judas  Iscariot  and  the  Situation,      -  34 

5.  The  Eucharist,        -  49 

CHAPTER  III. 
THE  CAPTURE  OF  JESUS. 

1.  The  Preparation,  •-        52 

2.  The  Place  of  Capture,      -  54 

3.  The  Captors,     -  -        54 

4.  Judas  and  the  Kiss,                       ...  56 

5.  The  Nightly  Trial,       -  58 

6.  The  Arrest,           .....  60 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  TRIAL. 

1.  Two  High-Priests,  61 

2.  The  Place,  62 

3.  Peter  denying  his  Master,  -                                        63 

4.  The  Maltreatment  in  the  High-Priest's  Palace,      -         65 
1        5.    The  Nightly  Trial,  66 

6.  The  Time  of  the  Trial,  70 

7.  False  Witnesses,  72 

8.  False  Accusation,       -  73 

9.  Blasphemy,  74 
10.    Luke's  Trial,  78 

CHAPTER  V. 

JESUS   BEFORE   PlLATE. 

1.  The  Time,  81 

2.  The  Persons,  -       83 

3.  The  Queries,        -  83 

4.  Luke's  Version,                     -  -       85 

5.  John's  Version,  -                           -             90 

6.  A  Resume,      -  -       98 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  CRUCIFIXION. 

1.  The  Symbol  of  the  Cross,  100 

2.  Cause  of  the  Story,     -  -       103 

3.  The  Crucified  King,  106 

4.  The  Crucifixion  contradicted,  -       107 

5.  All  Greek  except  Calvary,  -             109 

6.  The  Legend,     -  113 

7.  Zachariah  xiv.,       -  -             115 

8.  Psalm  xxii,      -  117 

9.  Psalm  Ixix,  •»           -                         118 

10.  Isaiah  liii,  -       120 

11.  The  Scriptural  Argument,  123 
-      12.    The  True  Story,  -       125 

13.  Vicarious  Atonement,       -  -             126 

14.  The  Jews  did  not  crucify  Jesus,        -  -       129 

15.  The  Conclusion,    -  131 
APPENDIX. 


INTRODUCTION. 

THERE  is  but  one  absolute  truth,  and  this  is  God's,* 
therefore  truth  is  the  only  redeemer  of  man.  Whoever 
can  not  find  peace  and  happiness  in  the  divine  realm  of 
truth,  will  in  vain  seek  them  in  illusion  and  error.  There 
is  religion  in  truth,  and  superstition  in  error.  In  re- 
ligion, there  is  righteousness,  charity,  freedom,  peace, 
happiness,  and  enthusiasm  ;  fanaticism,  hatred,  persecu- 
tion, oppression,  and  an  enslaved  mind  are  the  offspring 
of  superstition.  These  are  the  criteria  by  which  to  dis- 
tinguish religion  from  superstition.  Those  who  do  not 
love  truth  must  not  read  this  treatise.  It  can  do  them 
no  good.  The  author  claims  to  be  a  servant  of  truth. 

Why  publish  it?  is  the  question  to  which  the  reader  is 
entitled,  and  which  the  author  has  repeatedly  asked  him- 
self. If  God  deigns  to  reveal  certain  truth  or  truths  to 
an  humble  individual,  why  must  he  publish  them,  if  he 
runs  the  risk  of  disturbing  the  religious  convictions  of 
his  fellow-men?  But  truth  is  not  ours,  it  is  God's. 
Therefore,  it  is  indomitable  and  irresistible.  No  man  and 
no  body  of  men,  neither  the  human  family  with  all  its 
wisdom,  ingenuity,  and  power,  nor  Nature  itself,  with  all 
the  violence  of  her  forces,  can  control  or  change  truth. 
Three  times  three  are  nine,  independent  of  all  that  is, 
was,  or  will  be.  By  the  cogitation  of  truth,  man  enters 
the  council  of  the  Most  High,  and  by  the  comprehension 
thereof  he  is  not  merely  made  an  ordained  disciple  ;  he 
is  compelled  to  be  its  herald.  Truth  is  sovereign,  and 
its  disciples  must  obey.  As  in  the  cases  of  Moses,  Jonah, 
and  Jeremiahf  excuses  are  useless,  and  resistance  is  of- 
fered in  vain.  By  this  peculiarity  of  truth  and  this  trait 
of  the  human  character,  truth  was  promulgated,  and,  in 
numerous  cases,  to  the  detriment  and  painful  injury  of 
its  heralds.  Therefore,  all  the  answer  the  author  can 
make  to  the  reader's  question  is  contained  in  the  follow- 
ing words  of  Jeremiah  :  "And,  I  thought,  I  will  not 

*Rabbi  Bun  says  (Talmud  Yerushalmi,  Sanhedrin,  I.  i.),  "What  is  truth  ? 
That  He  is  the  God  of  life,  and  the  King  of  the  world."  God  alone  is  abso- 
lute truth. 

t  Exodus  iv.j  Jonah  i.  3  ;  Jeremiah  xxi.  9. 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

make  mention  of  him  (God),  and  I  will  not  speak  any 
more.  But  it  became  in  my  heart  as  a  burning  fire  in- 
closed within  my  bones,  and  I  was  weary  with  enduring, 
and  I  could  not  overcome  it."  Therefore,  in  the  name  of 
God,  truth ! 

The  author  believes  to  have  overcome  the  prejudices 
which  education  and  association  impose,  and  to  have 
reached  a  purely  objective  standpoint  with  the  ability  of 
impersonal  judgment.  He  has  undertaken  this  piece  of 
work,  as  he  verily  believes,  without  any  prejudice  or  per- 
sonal opinion  to  be  imposed  on  the  literary  sources  before 
him.  He  claims  to  have  diligently  studied  the  Christian 
Scriptures  and  their  cotemporary  literature.  He  has 
written  a  number  of  essays  and  treatises  on  various  chap- 
ters of  the  New  Testament,  published  in  THE  ISRAEL- 
ITE in  the  years  1858,  1859,  and  1863.  He  has  trans- 
lated that  portion  of  Gustav  Adolf  Wislecenu's  book, 
Die  Bibelfuer  denkende  Leser  betrachtetj  which  relates  to 
the  four  Gospels,  and  published  it  in  THE  ISRAELITE, 
in  the  year  1865.  In  the  year  1867,  he  published  in  the 
same  journal  a  treatise  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which 
was  republished  by  Bloch  &  Co.  (Cincinnati,  1868),  and 
called  "  The  Origin  of  Christianity,  and  a  commentary 
to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  In  the  year  1869,  he 
published  in  the  same  journal  an  essay,  in  ten  chapters, 
on  the  precepts  of  Jesus,  called  u  Jesus  Himself."  Be- 
sides he  published  in  this  and  other  journals,  a  number  of 
critical  expositions  on  Bible  passages,  which  have  a  spe- 
cial bearing  on  Christianity,  such  as  Genesis,  xlix.  10 ; 
Deuter.,  xviii.20;  2  Saml.,  vii.;  Isaiah,  vii,  14;  ix.  5; 
xi,  1  ;  liii.;  Psalms  ii.  and  ex,,  and  similar  passages.  So 
prepared,  he  wrote  a  course  of  three  lectures  on  Jesus, 
the  Apostles,  and  Paul  (  published  last  year),  and  delivered 
them  in  the  largest  cities  of  the  Union,  to  intelligent  and 
appreciative  audiences,  and  under  the  most  favorable 
criticism  of  the  public  press.  Therefore  the  author  con- 
siders himself  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  sources  to 
understand  them  correctly. 

The  author  claims  to  have  written  this  treatise  in  the 
cau^e  of  religion.  Whatever  is  productive  of  fanaticism, 
haired,  persecution,  or  oppression,  is  not,  can  not,  and 
dare  not  be  a  doctrine,  precept,  or  dogma  of  any  religion. 
It  produces  effects  contrary  to  those  which  religion,  to  be 
genuine  and  divine,  must  produce.  It  degrades  and 


INTRODUCTION.  1 1 

brutalizes,  and  the  mission  of  religion  is  to  elevate  and 
humanize.  It  sows  discord  and  sustains  hostility  ;  and 
the  great  objects  of  religion  are  peace,  harmony,  and  love. 
Of  all  the  religious  observances  among  Heathens,  Jews,  or 
Turks,  none  has  been  the  cause  of  more  hatred,  persecu- 
tion, outrage,  and  bloodshed,  than  the  eucharist.  The 
very  word  hostie  or  host  is  hostile.  Christians  persecut- 
ed one  another  like  relentless  foes,  and  thousands  of 
Jews  were  slaughtered  on  account  of  the  eucharist  and 
the  host.  If  the  doctrines  underlying  this  observance 
are  religious,  then  the  Hindoo*'  Car  of  Juggernaut  may 
justly  be  called  a  religious  institution.  Yet,  it  is  main- 
tained, Jesus  instituted  it  as  one  of  the  sacraments  of  the 
Church.  If  this  was  true,  then  Jesus  was  not  a  preacher 
of  righteousness  ;  he  was  the  author  of  a  superstition 
which  bore  its  legitimate  fruits  of  hatred,  bloodshed,  and 
misery.  Therefore,  the  author's  attempt  in  this  treatise 
to  prove  that  Jesus  has  not  instituted  the  so-called  Lord's 
Supper  as  a  sacrament  of  the  Church,  is  made  in  defense 
not  only  of  religion,  but  also  of  Christianity  and  the 
character  of  Jesus. 

Again,  among  all  the  myths  and  tales  ever  told  by 
the  Heathens,  Jews,  or  Turks,  to  base  religious  doctrines 
upon  them,  none  has  ever  been  so  egregious  and  preg- 
nant of  horror  and  slaughter  as  the  mythical  base  of  the 
doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement.  "  The  Jews  crucified 
Jesus ;"  therefore  any  avaricious  ruler,  wicked  priest,  or 
bloodthirsty  mob  found  an  excuse  and  absolution  for 
slaying  thousands  of  innocent  men,  women,  and  children. 
Therefore  any  narrow-minded  miniature  reasoner,  even  in 
our  days,  will  construct  some  sort  of  principle  to  justify 
the  barbarities  of  past  generations,  showing  that  the  as- 
sassins of  the  Jews  were  merely  the  innocent  executioners 
of  a  foaming  and  raging  deity,  whose  son  had  ueen 
abused.  Therefore  the  prejudices  against  the  Jew  still 
draw  nutriment  Irorn  that  old  root,  and  the  cause  of  re- 
ligion and  humanity  are  still  defied  on  the  strength  of  a 
myth  ;  so  tenacious  is  superstition.  If  the  redemption 
and  salvation  of  mankind  depended  upon  the  martyrdom 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  God  at  that  particular  time 
had  decreed  to  save  the  family  of  man  by  that  peculiar 
arrangement,  then  it  was  dire  necessity  that  somebody 
must  kill  Jesus.  So  one  or  more  people  had  to  become 
criminals  in  order  to  save  the  human  family;  or,  in  other 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

words,  God  could  not  save  His  creatures  otherwise  except 
by  the  condemnation  of  some.  We  will  not  inquire  into 
God's  right  or  wisdom  to  make  such  an  arrangement ;  we 
will  merely  say,  that  this  precedent  gives  us  the  right  to 
seduce  one  portion  of  the  human  family  to  crime  in  order 
to  benefit  the  other.  Every  sound  reasoner  must  reject 
this  doctrine  as  immoral ;  yet  it  is  maintained  to  be  cor- 
rect in  religion  ;  or,  in  other  words,  God  may  be  immoral, 
man  must  be  moral — i.  e>,  man  must  be  better  than  his 
God.  This  being  certainly  an  error,  we  must  reject  its 
basis,  and  say,  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  was  not  decreed  by 
the  Almighty,  his  martyrdom  was  not  necessary  for  the 
salvation  of  mankind,  and  the  dogma  of  vicarious  atone- 
ment is  immoral.  Being  immoral  it  is  also  irreligious. 
But  aside  of  this  reasoning  it  is  irreligious  because  it 
was  pregnant  with  horror,  misery,  and  bloodshed  to  thou- 
sands of  innocent  men,  women,  and  children,  and  is  still 
the  source  of  prejudice,  discord,  and  hatred  ;  and  the  mis- 
sion of  religion  is  peace,  charity,  and  love.  It  is  eo  ipso 
a  superstition.  Whoever  has  the  honest  desire  to  be 
truly  religious  and  truly  pious,  must  reject  everything 
which  fanaticizes,  wrongs  anybody,  or  sows  discord 
among  brethren. 

Therefore,  the  author's  attempt  in  this  treatise,  show- 
ing that  the  Jews  did  not  crucify  Jesus,  and  that  the 
dogma  of  vicarious  atonement  has  no  foundation  in  the 
Gospels,  is  a  defense  of  religion  in  behalf  of  truth  and 
humanity. 

It  must  be  said  here  that  Frederic  Schleiermacher  has 
given  up  the  doctrines  of  Christ's  divinity,  vicarious 
atonement,  and  the  fabric  of  redemption  based  there- 
upon ;  hence  that  all  liberal  Christians  have  erased 
these  doctrines  from  their  creeds;  but  none,  although  the 
Academy  of  France  has  decided  the  question,  has  ex- 
pressed the  fact  that  the  Romans,  and  not  the  Jews,  have 
crucified  Jesus,  so  that  we  are  obliged  to  do  it  for  them. 

In  order  to  be  understood  correctly,  the  reader  is  re- 
quested to  pay  attention  to  the  following  canon  of  criti- 
cisms : 

First — None  of  the  Gospels  now  before  us  in  the 
Greek,  was  written  in  the  first  century.  The  Christian 
Scriptures  of  the  first  century  were  epistles  and  apocalyp- 
ses (of  which  John's  is  a  pattern).  The  Gospel  stories 
and  the  precepts  of  Jesus  were  preserved  traditionally  in 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

the  various  churches,  and  must  necessarily  have  under- 
gone many  changes  and  modifications  before  they  were 
reduced  to  writing.  Whether  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  theGospel  according  to  the  Egyptians, 
mentioned  by  tke  oldest  historians  of  the  Church  (Cle- 
mens, Origenes,  and  Eusebius),  were  older  than  those 
l>ef'ore  us,  can  not  be  proved  any  more,  as  we  know  noth- 
ing of  their  authors,  and  next  to  nothing  of  their  con- 
tents. The  first  account  of  the  existence  of  the  four 
Gospels  is  in  the  Muratori  fragment  which,  according  to 
the  best  authorities  on  the  subject,  was  written  by  an 
Italian  bishop,  between  the  years  180  to  200  B.  c. 

Second — The  oldest  of  the  Gospels  is  that  of  Mark.* 
It  is  less  legendary  and  more  epic  and  chronological  than 
the  others.  It  is  Unitarian  in  doctrine,  indorses  nowhere 
the  miraculous  origin  of  Jesus,  represents  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  a  mere  vision  of  Jesus  (i,  10),  has  none  of  the  anti- 
pharisean  speeches  which  are  products  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  is  most  Jewish  in  principle. 

The  thirteenth  chapter  ot  Mark,  so  much  is  evident 
from  the  fruits  of  modern  criticism,  compiled  by  Dr.  H. 
Graetz,f  must  have  been  written  during  the  persecution 
of  the  Jews  by  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  after  the  fall  of 
Bethar,  when  Jerusalem  had  been  changed  into  a  Pagan 
city,  to  which  facts  Mark  so  clearly  refers.  The  date  of 
these  persecutions  is,  according  to  Graetz,  135  to  138 
A.  c.  According  to  the  Talmud,  Bethar  fell  122  A.  c.  The 
persecutions  outside  of  Bethar  must  have  commenced  be- 
fore the  fall  of  that  city.  It  is  certain,  therefore,  that 
the  oldest  Gospel  was  written  between  120  and  138  A.  c. 

This  leads  to  almost  a  certain  knowledge  of  Mark 
himself.  Dr.  Mosheim  informs  us  :J  "  When  this  emperor 
(Hadrian)  had,  at  length,  razed  Jerusalem,  entirely  de- 
stroyed even  its  very  foundations  (which  is  unhistorical), 
and  enacted  laws  of  the  severest  kind  against  the  whole 
body  of  the  Jewish  people,  the  greatest  part  of  the 
Christians  who  lived  in  Palestine,  to  prevent  their  being 
confounded  with  the  Jews,  abandoned  entirely  the  Mosaic 
rites,  and  chose  a  bishop  named  Mark,  a  foreigner  by 

*Dr.  F.  A.  Mueller's  Briefe  ueber  die  Christliche  Religion.    • 

tDr,  H  Graetz's  Geschichte  der  JuJen,  Vol.  III.,  second  edition  eleventh 
chapter,  and  Vol.  IV.,  Note  19. 

j Ecclesiastical  History,  II.  Century,  Chapter  v. 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

nation,  and  consequently  an  alien  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel."  This  Mark  and  no  other  was  the  author  of 
the  second  and  oldest  gospel  extant.  He  was  head-mas- 
ter of  an  academy  in  Alexandria,  before  he  was  elected 
bishop. 

It  is  also  discernable  why  Mark  wrote  his  gospel.  Up 
to  that  date  the  Christians  read  in  their  churches  the 
Jewish  Bible  only  and  exclusively.  One  of  the  edicts  of 
Hadrian  prohibited  under  the  penalty  of  death  to  possess, 
read,  expound,  or  teach  the  Jewish  Bible,  especially  the 
Pentateuch.  So  the  Christians  also  had  no  Scriptures  to 
read  in  their  churches.  Therefore,  Mark  was  obliged  to 
write  a  gospel  to  be  read  in  the  churches  in  lieu  of  the 
Bible.  He  being  the  Bishop  of  the  parent  congregation, 
his  book  soon  became  widely  known  among  Christians, 
whose  traditions  differed  essentially  from  those  of  Mark 
and  his  congregation.  Therefore  a  number  of  gospels 
were  written  shortly  after  Mark,  so  that  Luke  could  say, 
"  For  as  much  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth 
in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things  which  are  most 
surely  believed  among  us."  It  is  evident  that  many 
wrote  gospels,  and  that  in  Syria,  where  Luke  lived,  no 
Gospel  had  been  written  then  ;  it  was  only  most  surely 
believed,  what  he  committed  to  writing.  Of  all  those 
gospels,  however,  only  that  of  Matthew  has  reached  us. 

Third — The  chronological  order  of  the  Gospels  is 
Mark,  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  written  between  120 
and  170  A.  c. 

Fourth — All  passages,  in  which  the  four  Gospels  or 
the  three  synoptics  literally  concur,  are  taken  from  Mark. 

Fifth — All  passages,  which  are  in  one  Gospel  and  not 
also  in  the  other,  were  traditions  of  that  church,  for  which 
that  evangelist  wrote. 

Sixth — Every  Gospel  represents  another  set  of  doc- 
trines; consequently  the  story  is  fitted  to  the  doctrine. 

Seventh — Wherever  it  is  said  "  that  it  be  fulfilled,"  the 
story  is  either  legendary  or  it  has  been  so  changed  as  to 
fit  to  certain  Scriptural  passages. 

With  this  apparatus  the  author  has  unraveled  the  state- 
ments of  the  Gospels,  and  has  carefully  compared  them 
with  others  of  cotemporary  literature,  as  found  in  the  an- 
cient rabbinical  books  and  elsewhere.  The  resultants 
thereof  in  regard  to  the  martyrdom  of  Jesus,  are  laid 
down  in  this  treatise. 


THE 

UNIVERSITY 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  SECRET    CONCLAVE. 
» 

I.     THE   CONSPIRATORS. 

MARK  (  xiv,  1)  informs  us,  that  two  days  before  the 
feast  of  passover,  "the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes 
sought  how  they  might  take  him  (Jesus)  by  craft,  and 
put  him  to  death,11  The  chief  priests,  under  the  iron  rule 
of  Pilate  and  his  wicked  master,  Sejan,  were  the  tools  of 
the  Roman  soldiers  who  held  Judea  and  Samaria  in  sub- 
jection. The  chief  priests  were  the  officers  of  the  temple, 
and  the  political  agents.  Like  the  high-priest,  they  were 
appointed  to  and  removed  from  office  by  the  Roman  gov- 
ernor of  the  country,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  They 
purchased  their  commissions  for  high  prices,  and,  like  al- 
most all  Roman  appointees,  used  them  for  mercenary  pur- 
poses. They  were  considered  wicked  men  by  the  ancient 
writers,*  and  must  have  stood  very  low  in  the  estimation 
of  the  people,  over  whom  they  tyrannized.  The  patriots 
must  have  looked  upon  them  as  the  hirelings  of  the  for- 
eign despot  whose  rule  was  abhorred.  Although  there 
was,  here  and  there,  a  good,  pious,  and  patriotic  man 
among  them,  he  was  an  exception.  As  a  general  thing, 
and  under  the  rule  of  Pilate,  especially,  they  were  the 
corrupt  tools  of  a  military  despotism  which  Rome  im- 
posfd  upon  enslaved  Palestine.f 

Josephus  gives  us  to  understand  (  Antiqu.,  xx.,  ix.  1) 
that  most  of  the  high  priests  of  that  period  were  Zaddu- 
cees,  as  one  must  naturally  expect.  The  Pharisees  were 
the  democrats,  who  were  most  bitterly  opposed  to  the 
Roman  despotism,  as  they  had  been  to  Herod  and  Arche- 
laus,  and  had  asked  of  Pompey  already  the  restoration  of 
the  democratic  theocracy  in  Palestine.  Ancient  Hebrew 

*  Siphri,  Phineas  beginning ;  Yerushalmi,  Yoma,  i.  1,  and  else- 
where. See  also  the  story  of  Martha,  the  wife  of  Joshua  ben  Ga- 
mala,  who  purchased  the  high-priesthood  for  her  husband,  of 
Agrippa  II.,  for  a  pot  full  of  gold. 

t  See  I.  Salvador's  History  of  the  Roman  Dominion  in  Judea 
(French),  Vol.  1,  Epoch  iii.,  Chapter  iii.,  and  the  corresponding 
chapters  in  Jost's,  Graetz's,  and  Raphall's  History  of  the  Jews. 


16  THE   CONSPIRATORS. 

writers  corroborate  this  statement.  They  call  one  faction 
of  the  Zadducees  Boethites,  and  Boethus  was  the  family 
name  of  the  priestly  house,  then  in  power.  In  Yerushal- 
mi  (Yoma,  i.  5)  the  Zadducees  are  plainly  called  Boe- 
thites. Some  of  those  Boethite  high-priests  were  un- 
able to  read  the  Hebrew  Bible  (Mishna,  Yoma,  i.  6 )  ; 
hence,  they  certainly  were  ignorant  in  Jewish  lore  and 
law.  Therefore  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  have  in 
their  train  learned  counselors,  scribes  of  the  Pharisees  or 
Zadducees,  to  advise  them,  and  to  guard  them  against 
blunders  in  law  and  custom.  These  learned  counselors 
are  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  which,  throughout  the  Gos- 
pels, appear  in  the  train  of  the  chief  priests.  They  were 
the  hirelings  of  the  chief  priests,  and  with  them  the  tools 
of  Rome.  Some  of  these  chief  priests  and  these  scribes — 
we  know  now  who  they  were — Mark  informs  us,  sought 
how  they  might  take  him  (Jesus)  by  craft,  and  put  him 
to  death.  They  were  no  representative  men  in  Israel  ; 
they  represented  Rome,  or  rather  Pontius  Pilate,  who 
represented  Sejan,  the  wicked  minister  of  Tiberius,  one 
of  Rome's  bloodthirsty  Csesars.  They  did  not  represent 
the  zealots ;  for  those  zealots  were  the  most  violent  and 
most  valiant  democrats  of  that  age,  and  the  most  im- 
placable enemies  of  Rome  ;  while  those  priests  and  scribes 
were  Rome's  hirelings.  They  did  not  represent  the  will 
of  the  pilgrims  and  citizens  assembled  in  Jerusalem,  as  is 
evident  from  the  testimony  of  the  evangelists,  to  be  re- 
viewed hereafter.  They  represented  themselves  and  their 
Roman  masters  only  and  exclusively.  A  dozen  or  two 
of  leading  politicians  among  the  priests,  it  appears,  con- 
spired against  the  life  of  Jesus.  Their  motives  will  be 
unraveled  in  this  chapter. 

If  Mark's  statement  is  reliable,  then  we  have  the  main 
key  to  the  situation.  Let  us  investigate.  Matthew  (xxvi. 
3,  4)  copies  the  words  of  Mark  and  enlarges  on  them. 
His  additions  must  be  especially  investigated.  He  says  : 

"  Then  assembled  together  the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes, 
and  the  elders  of  the  people,  unto  the  palace  of  the  high-priest, 
who  was  called  Caiaphas,  and  consulted  that  they  might  take  Je- 
sus by  subtility,  and  kill  him." 

There  are  in  this  statement  two  additions :  (1)  "  The 
elders  of  the  people;"  and  (2)  That  the  meeting  was  in 
the  palace  of  rhe  high-priest.  We  have  the  united  tes- 


THE  SECRET   CONCLAVE.  17 

timonv  of  the  three  other  evangelists  against  these  addi- 
tion.- of  Matthew.  Mark  did  imt  know  them  ;  Luke  and 
.John,  who  must  have  seen  them,  must  have  discredited 
thorn,  ior  none  of  them  mentions  eit  her  the  elders  of  the 
people  or  the  palace  of  the  high- priest.  It  must  not  be 
maintained  that  Luke  and  John  omitted  these  two 
points,  because  Matthew  had  already  written  them.  Nei- 
ther of  them  intended  to  supplement  either  of  their  pre- 
decessors. Kurh  proposed  to  himself  to  write  the  whole 
story.  Tin-re  is  not  one  proof  in  the  Gospels  that  any  of 
them  intended  to  supplement  another  book,  Luke  says 
it  clearly  enough  in  his  introductory  verses,  that  he  wrote 
the  Gospel  stories  completely,  without  reference  to  any 
other  writer,  "  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us;"  and  yet 
lie  omits  those  two  points  of  Matthew.  It  could  only 
be  because  they  were  not  delivered  unto  him,  and  he  did 
not  accredit  them  on  the  authority  of  Matthew.  John 
did  the  same  thing  precisely.  Therefore,  we  have  three 
testimonies  for  Mark's  statement,  and  just  as  many  against 
Matthew's  additions.  There  is  a  discrepancy  in  this 
verse.  For  the  Latin,  Matthew  omits  "  scribes  ;"  making 
it  evident  that  he  changed  arbitrarily  Mark's  "  scribes" 
into  "  elders."  Luke  changes  it  back  into  Mark's  scribes, 
and  John  makes  of  it  the  more  definite  Pharisees,  as 
scribes  may  be  either  Pharisees  or  Zadducees. 

Another  point  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  this 
connection.  The  conspiracy  of  those  enemies  of  Jesus 
must  have  been  strictly  secret ;  because  tl  e  very  resolve 
of  taking  him  by  subtil  it  y  and  killing  him,  no  less  than 
the  execution  thereof,  was  calculated  to  make  that  same 
uproar  among  the  people,  which  those  conspirators  meant 
to  frustrate.  Besides,  if  not  strictly  secret,  it  would  have 
been  useless  entirely,  as  the  friends  of  Jesus,  discovering 
it,  could  have  crossed  the  scheme.  If  it  was  indeed  strict- 
ly secret,  how  could  the  evangelists  obtain  an  account 
thereof?  and  how  could  Matthew  and  John  have  known 
the  very  particulars  of  the  conspiracy,  so  that  the  tormer 
reports  where  it  was,  and  the  latter  adds  what  the  high- 
priest  suggested  on  that  occasion  ?  If  any  one  of  the  con- 
spirators had  afterward  betrayed  the  transaction,  one  at 
least  of  the  evangelists  must  have  named  the  traitor  to 
substantiate  the  statement  and  to  clear  up  the  mystery 
which  renders  it  spurious.  Therefore,  we  are  forced  to 


18  THE   TIME. 

the  hypothesis  that  the  statement  was  made  retrospec- 
tively. After  the  whole  fact  of  the  martrydom  of  Jesus 
was  before  his  disciples,  and  from  the  tenor  of  the  per- 
sons engaged  in  it,  it  was  supposed  the  plot  originated  in 
the  conspiracy  of  some  priests  and  scribes.  So  Mark  and 
Luke  viewed  the  situation.  Therefore  Mark  leaves  the 
high-priest  out  of  the  drama  to  the  very  last  scene  (xiv. 
60),  and  Luke  exonerates  him  altogether,  and  mentions 
his  name  no  more  in  connection  with  Jesus.  Matthew 
(xxvi.  59)  and  John  (xviii.  19),  who  place  the  high-priest 
at  the  head  of  the  proceedings  had  against  Jesus,  must 
naturally  have  supposed,  retrospectively,  of  course,  that 
Caiaphas,  the  high-priest,  was  the  principal  figure  also  in 
the  primary  conspiracy.  Therefore  Matthew  states,  it 
was  in  the  high-priest's  palace,  and  John  adds  the  very 
words  of  that  dignitary  on  that  occasion.  All  this  sug- 
gests that  in  the  early  Church  there  were  two  different 
traditions  on  the  whole  tenor  of  the  martrydom  of  Je^us  : 
one  in  Judea,  chronicled  by  Mark;  and  another  outside 
thereof,  chronicled  by  Matthew.  Luke  and  John  made 
attempts  to  harmonize  both,  as  we  shall  have  frequent 
occasions  to  notice.  The  fact  could  have  been  but  one  ; 
hence  the  two  different  traditions  point  to  two  different 
retrospective  views  of  the  same  fact. 

II.      THE   TIME. 

Both  Mark  and  Matthew  narrate  in  the  same  words 
that  the  conspirators  said,  u  not  on  the  feast-day,"  their 
designs  against  Jesus  should  be  carried  into  effect,  "  lest 
there  be  an  uproar  of  (among)  the  people."  This  state- 
ment is  somewhat  indefinite.  It  leaves  it  uncertain 
whether  the  design  was  to  be  carried  out  before  or  after 
the  feast ;  and  whether  the  uproar  of  the  people  was  ap- 
prehended by  the  capture  and  execution  of  Jesus,  or  by 
the  contrary  thereof,  viz.,  to  let  him  continue  his  work  to 
the  feast-day.  Before  we  can  clear  up  this,  obscurity,  we 
must  correct  an  error. 

Many  commentators,  so  also  Adam  Clarke,  suppose  the 
words,  "  Not  on  the  feast-day,"  were  put  in  by  Mark  and 
repeated  by  Matthew  ;  because  it  was  usual  for  the  Jews 
to  punish  criminals  at  the  public  festivals.  In  this  case, 
however,  the  conspirators  wanted  to  make  an  exception, 
because  they  apprehended  an  uproar  of  the  people.  This 
is  a  mistake.  It  was  law  in  Israel,  in  all  cases  of  capital 


THE   SECRET   CONCLAVE.  19 

punishment  except  one,  that  the  execution  followed  the 
ruulition  of  the  sentence  directly  on  the  same,  or  the  very 
nrxt  day,  so  that  it  was  a  standing  formula,  pJJ70  f'N 
pin  DX  which  signifies  both:  "Justice  must  not  be 
delayed;"  and,  also,  "Justice  must  not  be  made  cruel." 
The  time  between  the  sentence  and  its  execution  was  con- 
sidered the  most  tormenting  to  the  criminal,  and  was, 
therefore,  made  as  short  as  possible.* 

It  was  prohibited  not  only  to  execute  a  criminal  on 
Sabbath,  or  a  feast-day,  but  also  to  open  his  trial  on 
Friday,  or  the  eve  of  a  holy  day;  because,  if  found  guil- 
ty, he  could  not  be  executed  the  next  day.f  Only  in  one 
case,  the  Zaken  Mamrai,  the  law  ordains  his  execution  to 
take  place  in  Jerusalem,  and  so  near  one  of  the  high 
feasts,  not  on  the  feast,  that  all  the  pilgrims  might  hear 
and  see  ;  because,  in  his  case,  the  Bible  ordains  (  Deuter. 
xvii.  13),  public  proceedings  to  be  made  known  to  all  the 
people.l 

A  Zaken  Mamrai,  literally  "the  rebellious  senator,"  is 
an  ordained  judge  and  teacher,  eligible  into  the  Sanhedrin, 
and  entitled  to  plead  before  that  body,  who  willfully  de- 
cides cases  in  law  contrary  to  the  laws  made  by  the  San- 
hedrin.  After  he  has  been  found  guilty  thereof  the  first 
time,  before  the  Sanhedrin,  he  is  reprimanded  and  retain- 
ed in  his  office.  If  he  decides  again  contrary  to  the  law 
of  the  land,  with  rebellious  intentions,  he  is  tried  and,  if 
found  guilty,  sent  to  the  Sanhedrin,  in  Jerusalem,  kept 
there  to  the  next  holy  day,  and  then  put  to  death  pub- 
licly. 

Jesus  was  no  Zaken  Mamrai.  In  the  first  place,  he  was 
no  ordained  judge  and  teacher,  in  the  sense  of  the  law  ; 
and  in  the  second  place,  he  held  no  office  as  public  judge 
and  teacher.  But  if  both  had  been  the  case,  he  could  not 
have  been  condemned  to  death  as  such  at  the  first  trial. 
Aside  of  all  these  considerations,  it  was  not  so  easy  to  find 
one  guilty  as  Zaken  Mamrai;  for  also  the  second  time,  .he 
had  to  be  tried  first  in  the  court  of  his  own  district — and 
Jesus  was  a  Galilean — and  then,  if  found  guilty,  he  was 
sent  to  the  Sanhedrin,  in  Jerusalem,  where  he  had  the 
right  of  appeal.  The  last  point  to  be  considered  is  this  : 

*  See  Maimonides,  Mishnah  Thorah,  Hilchoth  Sanhedrin,  xii. 
4,  and  xiii.  1. 

t  Ibid.  xi.  2,  and  sources  quoted  in  loco  cit. 
I  Ibid.  Hilchoth  Mamrim,  iii.  8. 


20  THE   TIME. 

None  but  the  high  Sanhedrin  could  decree  the  execution 
of  the  Zaken  Mamrai  ;  and  there  was  none  in  Jerusalem 
from  30  to  40  A.  c.  But  we  discuss  this  point  hereafter. 
It  is  certain  that  Jesus  could  not  have  been  tried  and 
condemned  as  a  Zaken  Mamrai',  no  other  criminal  was  ex- 
ecuted on  any  feast  in  Jerusalem  ;  hence  the  words  of  the 
evangelists,  "  not  on  the  feast-day,"  refer  to  no  Jewish 
law  or  custom. 

There  are  other  commentators,  and  among  them  also 
David  Frederic  Strauss,  who  understand  the  evangelical 
statement  so  :  The  conspirators  resolved  to  dispose  of  Je- 
sus in  any  manner,  but  not  on  the  feast-day  ;  because  they 
feared  an  uproar  among  the  numerous  pilgrims  in  Jerus- 
alem, among  whom  Jesus  was  very  popular,  some  of  them 
believing  he  was  a  prophet.  Therefore  they  resolved  to 
wait  till  after  the  feast,  and  then  execute  their  evil  designs. 
We  must  presuppose,  in  order  to  justify  this  view,  that 
the  pilgrims  were  friendlier  disposed  toward  Jesus  than 
the  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  not  supported  by  any 
statement  of  the  evangelists,  or  any  other  evidence.  On 
the  contrary,  Mark  and  Matthew  let  the  reader  believe 
that  those  who  made  the  demonstration,  when  Jesus  en- 
tered the  city,  were  chiefly  citizens  of  the  capital ;  and 
John  evidently  thinks  the  people  from  Jerusalem  came 
out  to  see  the  Lazarus  miracle,  and  many  of  them  believ- 
ed. Again,  we  must  suppose  that  these  conspirators  did 
not  know  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples  also  might  have  left 
the  city  and  the  country  during  the  seven  days  of  the 
feast,  which  would  have  frustrated  their  designs  altogeth- 
er. This  view  of  the  situation  renders  the  whole  proceed- 
ings unintelligible.  First,  they  resolved  not  to  do  it  on 
the  feast-day,  because  they  apprehended  an  uproar,  and 
then  they  did  do  it  after  all,  and  on  the  very  day.  It 
must  not  be  asserted  that  they  changed  resolves,  because 
after  the  meeting  Judas  Iscariot  betrayed  his  master;  for 
his  treachery  had  no  influence  on  the  people  of  whom  an 
uproar  was  apprehended.  The  situation  remained  un- 
changed. Therefore,  we  are  obliged  to  understand  the 
words,  "  not  on  the  feast-day,"  to  convey  the  conspira- 
tors' resolution  of  executing  their  design  before  the  feast- 
day,  as  on  that  day  particularly  the  danger  of  an  uproar 
threatened.  Where  was  the  particular  danger  just  that 
day  ?  Let  us  investigate. 


THE   SECRET   CONCLAVE.  21 

III.      THE   SITUATION. 

Luke    fxxii.    1)   understood   the  statements   of  Mark 
and  Matthew  exactly  as  \vedo.      He  savs  ; 

"Now  the  tVast  ,>f  unleav,n(MH,rea<ldn-w  nijr],,  Nvhieh  is  called 

1KlSS',T7:n  iAn<1    '  "'    £hlei     pr"'StS  ;m<1   8cri^8   «"Ul?l't   how 
they  nn-ht  kill  him;  for  they  feared  the  people." 

It  was  not  exaetly  two  days  before  the  feast;  the  time 
set  by  Mark  and  Matthew  is  too  short  for  the  transaction, 
t  was  shortly  before  the  feast.  The  danger  apprehend.-d 
was  connected  especially  with  the  feast'  of  unleavened 
bread  Therefore  the  conspirators  resolved  to  dispose  ot 
him  before  the  feast.  And  why  did  they  seek  to  kill 
him  ?  "for  they  f oared  the  people."  They  did  not  merely 
tear  the  people,  in  disposing  of  Jesus  :  they  apprehended 
also  an  uproar  on  the  feast,  if  he  was  permitted  continu- 
ing his  work  among  the  people.  So  and  not  otherwise 
we  can  understand  Luke. 

Of  what  nature   could  that   apprehended  danger    be? 
The  conspirators  could  not  have  thought  of  the  probabili- 
ty of  a  quarrel  leading  to  excesses  among  the  people  on 
the  feast;  because  the  Synoptics  give    us  to  understand, 
everywhere,  that  the  people  were  in  favor  of  Jesus.     His 
opponents  were  the  high  dignitaries,  chief  priests,  scribes 
tc.,  who  could  not  be  expected  to  make  an  uproar      Or 
was  it  all  fanaticism  on  the  part  of  the  conspirators,  as  is 
generally  supposed?     If  there  was  any  special  cause  in 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  (which  we  can  not  discover)  to  i<r- 
nite  the  fanaticism  to  bloodthirsty  fury,  then  the  question 
;es,  Why  were  not  the  masses  fanaticized?  why  just  the 
leading  class?     As  a  general  thing,  fanaticism  is  sought 
nrst  and  foremost  among  the  illiterate  masses  ;  last  and 
least  among  the  cultivated  and    refined    ones.     Besides 
Caiapba*,  with  his  chief  priests  and  scribes,  holding  office 
under  the  Roman  authority,  were  certainly  less  religious 
and  patriotic— more  Latinized  and  Paganized    than  the 
bulk  of  the  people;  hence,  rather  less  zealous  than  others 
111  matters  of  religion  or  national  law.  There  is  evidently 
a  mystery  at  the  bottom  of  the  priests'  conduct ;  a  mysterV 
winch  the  expounders  of  the  Gospel  have  not  attempted 
to  unravel.     We  think,  however,  its  solution  is  plainly 
given  in  the  words  of  John,  and  in  cotemporary  history 
and  literature.     Let  us  hear  John  first  (xi.  45  to  50)  • 


22  THE   SITUATION. 

"  Then  gathered  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees  a 
council,  and  said,  What  do  we  ?  for  this  man  doeth  many  mira- 
cles. If  we  left  him  thus  a'orie,  all  men  wi  1  believe  on  him;  and 
the  Romans  shall  come  and  take  away  both  our  place  and  na- 
tion And  one  of  them,  named  Caiaphas  being  the  high-priest 
that  same  year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing  at  all,  nor  con- 
sider that  it  is  expedient  for  us  that  one  man  should  die  for  the 
people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not." 

Take  away  the  marvelous  embellishment  and  the  ana- 
chronism from  this  piece ;  take  also  out  of  the  account  the 
Sanhedrin,  none  of  which  existed  from  30  to  40  A.  c. , 
and  here  we  ha,ve  the  key  to  the  mystery:  "If  we  let 
him  thus  go  on,  all  will  believe  in  him  ;  and  the  Romans 
will  come  and  take  away  both  our  place  and  our  nation" 
(land  and  people).  There  is  no  fanaticism  in  these  sober 
and  political  words. 

Jesus  had  been  proclaimed  the  Messiah,  the  ruler  of 
the  Jews,  and  the  restorer  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  No 
Roman  ear  could  understand  these  pretensions,  otherwise 
than  iu  their  rebellious  sense.  No  Roman  had  ever  dis- 
tinguished between  a  spiritual  and  political  kingdom  of 
heaven.  The  proclamations  of  the  disciples,  if  supported 
by  the  demonstrations  of  the  multitude,  could  have  been 
called  rebellion  only  by  the  Roman  authorities.  There 
was  the  danger.  Immediate  precedences  justified  those 
apprehensions.  Because  a  Jewish  vagabond  in  Rome, 
with  three  men  as  his  accomplices,  obtained  purple  and 
gold  of  Fluvia  for  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  and  turned  it 
to  their  own  use,  the  emperor  Tiberius  drove  all  the  Jews 
out  of  Rome,  took  four  thousand  of  them  and  sent  them 
as  soldiers  to  the  pestilential  island  of  Sardinia,  and 
punished  a  greater  number  of  them,  who  were  unwilling 
to  become  soldiers.  (Joseph.  Ant.,  xviii.,  iii.  5.)  At  that 
particular  time,  this  was  justice  in  Rome — at  least  justice 
to  the  Jews.  Not  only  this  case,  but  another  of  the  same 
outrageous  character,  was  fresh  in  the  memory  of  those 
men.  A.  religious  enthusiast  called  the  Samaritans  to- 
gether on  their  holy  Mount  Gerizzim,  where  he  promised 
to  work  miracles  for  them.  Some  people  going  there  con- 
gregrated  at  Tirathaba,  where  Pilate's  men  who  had  seized 
the  roads,  attacked  those  pilgrims,  killed  many  of  them, 
took  many  prisoners,  the  principal  of  which,  and  also  the 
most  potent  of  those  that  fled  away,  Pilate  ordered  to  be 
slain  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.,  iv.  1,  and  Luke  xiii.  1).  Shortly 
before  this,  a  large  number  of  unarmed  men  were  attacked 


THE   SECRET   CONCLAVE.  23 

by  Pilate's  diso-msed  soldiers  and  slain  by  the  scores  in 
Jerusalem,  because  they  complained  in  a  public  meeting 
over  1  date's  pillage  of  the  temple  treasury.  (Joseph.,  #id 

xvm.,111.  >>.)  S.vm-s  of  this  nature  were  not  seldom  in 
Jerusalem.  ( )n  the  slightest  pretense  the  Roman  soldiers 
massacred  and  pilla-ed.  The  avarice  of  the  Roman  officials 
the  bloodthirst  of  their  hirelings,  and  the  brutality  of 
their  provincial  policy,  fully  justified  the  apprehension  of 
those  men,  |'If  we  let  him  thus  go  on,  all  will  believe  on 
him  ;  and  the  Romans  shall  come  and  take  away  both  our 
place  and  our  nation."  Although  this  was  certainly  writ- 
ten after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  still  in  the  main  it 
was  correct  also  in  the  days  of  Pilate.  The  multitude 
did  not  mind  this  danger,  as  enthusiastic  masses  never  see 
far  l>eyond  the  memento  of  their  enthusiasm  But  the 
wealthy  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  the  heads  and  politicians  of 
the  people,  who  must  have  known  the  feelings  and  inten- 
tions of  Pilate,  dreaded  a  demonstration  in  favor  of  the 
proclaimed  Messiah,  which  they  knew  must  have  ended  in 
a  bloody  carnage  and  general  pillage,  followed  by  execu- 
tions and  confiscations,  to  gratify  the  domineering  avarice 
and  bloodthirsty  barbarism. 

Caiaphas,  according  to  John,  Caiaphas  was  the  heartless 
man  (or  probably  did  he  utter  the  words  with  a  bleedino- 
neart-  who  knows  ?)  who  uttered  the  fatal  words— politi- 
cal necessity  demands  from  our  hands  the  life  of  that  man- 
:  is  expedient  for  us  that  one  man  should  die  for  the 
people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not  "     Political 
necessity  is  the  horrible  phrase  which  has  cost  the  lives  of- 
ten thousands  of  the  best  and  noblest  of  mankind      The 
mind  shudders  at  the  contemplation  of  all  the  executions 
and  assassinations  in  behalf  of  political  necessity,  recorded 
i  history.      Think  for  a  moment  of  the  armies  slaughtered 
but  lately  on  our  continent,  from  political  necessity    Think 
of  the  late  victims  in  East  India,  in  Poland,  in  Paris— 
uiywhere    almost,  and   you   will  easily   comprehend  the 
curse   the  bloody  import  of  the  phrase,  political  necessity 
M  .s  Caiaphas  a  tool  of  Rome,  and  wished  to  please  his 
masters  by  the  prevention  of  a  great  popular  insurrection 
ainonjr  h,s  jwople  ?  or  was  he  a  patriot  who  really  dreaded' 
prospective  consequences?  or  did  he  know  certainly  what 
was  eomnur,  and   meant  fully  what  he  said?     Our  con- 
science revolting  against  the  shedding  of  innocent  blood 
rorn  political  necessity,  is  naturally  against  Caiaphas  and 


24  THE   SITUATION. 

his  coadjutors.  Still  we  have  no  right  to  condemn  where 
we  can  not  ascertain  the  motives.  Only  He  who  is  om- 
niscient is  the  competent  judge  in  this  case. 

Thus  the  situation  is  explained.  The  teachings  of 
Jesus  in  Jerusalem  had  excited  the  closest  attention  of 
the  assembled  multitudes,  and  challenged  the  vigilance 

'  and  jealousy  of  the  Roman  authorities.  A  great  demon- 
stration in  his  favor  was  expected  during  the  feast,  when 
the  number  of  pilgrims  amounted  to  over  two  millions, 
according  to  Josephus.  The  high-priest  and  the  men 
around  him  apprehended  the  pretext  for  carnage,  pillage, 
and  national  calamity,  and  resolved  upon  disposing  of 
Jesus  in  time,  as  a  political  necessity.  But  they  dreaded 
the  ire  and  fury  of  the  masses,  and  could  not  capture 
Jesus  in  the  temple.  Outside  thereof,  he  was  so  jealously 
gunrded  in  his  secret  abodes,  that  they  could  not  discover 
him.  In  this  dilemma  Judas  Iscariot  came  and  offered 
to  betray  the  Master,  and  to  deliver  him  into  their  hands 
in  the  silence  of  night.  The  motives  of  Judas  must  be 
ascertained  elsewhere  in  this  treatise. 

Why  was  the  uproar,  or  rather  the  popular  demonstra- 
tion, in  favor  of  Jesus  expected  on  the  first  day  of  the 
feast  ?  Because  the  first  day  all  pilgrims  were  in  the  city 
and  in  the  vicinity  of  the  temple  mount,  and  all  the  citi- 
zens of  Jerusalem  were  disengaged.  The  second  day 
many  of  the  pilgrims  left  (Deuter.,  xvi.  7),  and  many  of 
the  citizens  of  Jerusalem  went  about  their  usual  business 
(Levit.,  xxiii.  7,  8).  Besides,  for  those  who  believed  in  a 
Messiah  to  come,  he  had  to  make  his  appearance  on  the 
Feast  of  Passover.  It  was  believed  "on  this  day  they 
(Israel)  were  redeemed,  and  on  it  they  will  be  redeemed 
hereafter,"*  (Mechilta,  Bo  xiv.) 

Therefore  the  first  day  of  the  Passover  feast  was  selected 

-  for  a  public  demonstration,  to  proclaim  the  Messiah  and 
the  kingdom,  by  the  assembled  multitude,  in  strict  con- 
formity to  the  prejudices  of  those  who  believed,  as  the 
\vholeMessianic  scheme,  from  beginning  to  end,  had  been 
conducted.  It  was  this  demonstration  which  the  con- 
spirators meant  to  frustrate,  by  disposing  of  Jesus  before 
the  feast. 


p-vnj? 


THK    SF.CRKT    CONCLAVE.  25 

IV.  POLITICAL  NKCKSSITV  AND  JEWISH  ETHICS. 
The  idea  of  vicarious  atonement,  in  anv  form,  is  con- 
trary (o  Jewish  ethies.  The  Law  ordains (l)eut.,  xxv.  16), 
"A  man  shall  he  put  to  death  ior  his  own  sin,"  and  not  for 
the  sin  or  crime  committed  by  any  other  person.  Noran- 
i  should  protect  the  murderer  against  the  arm  of  jus- 
.  (Numbers,  xxxv.,  31  to  34.)  The  principle  of  equal 
rights  and  equal  responsibilities  is  fundamental  in  the 
Law.  If  the  Law  of  God — and  as  such  it  was  received — 
denounces  the  vicarious  atonement,  viz.,  to  slaughter  an 
innocent  person  to  atone  for  the  crimes  of  others,  then 
(iod  must  abhor  it.  So  the  ancient  Hebrews  must  have 
reasoned.  \Vhen  Abraham  was  willing  to  sacrifice  his 
son  Isaac,  God  taught  him  that  He  accepts  no  human  vic- 
tim. When  Moses  prayed  lor  Israel  having  made  the 
golden  calf,  he  offered  himself  a  vicarious  atonement  for 
his  people.*  But  God  replied,  "Whosoever  hath  sinned 
against  me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book."  This  says 
at  once  and  emphatically,  God  accepts  no  vicarious  atone- 
ment, and  is  in  full  consonance  with  the  analogous  prin- 
ciple of  the  Law.  Therefore,  from  the  standpoint  of 
Israel's  religion  ^nd  law,  Caiaphas  and  his  conspirators 
had  no  right  to  sacrifice  Jesus  from  motives  of  political 
necessity. 

Two  cases,  recorded  in  the  Bible,  appear  contrary  to 
the  above  principle.  The  first  is  that  of  Achan,  the"  son 
of  Charmi  (Joshua,  vii.  lG),f  and  the  second  is  that  of 
Seba,  the  son  of  Bichri  (2  Samuel  xx).  However,  both  of 
them  are  supposed  to  be  criminals  :  the  former  violated 
martial  law  in  time  of  war,  and  the  latter  headed  a  rebel- 
lion against  King  David.  Still  the  expounders  of  the  law 
considered  both  cases  violations  of  first  principles.  They 
criticised  Joshua  as  mildly  as  they  could,  by  maintaining, 
Achan  was  admitted  to  eternal  life  and  happiness.  In  the 
of  Seba,  son  of  Bichri,  they  tell  us  the  following 
Story,  very  important  in  this  connection  : 

•'When  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up  to  destroy  Jerusalem, 
he  stopped  at  Daphne  of  Antioch.  The  great  Sanhedrin 
went  there  to  meet  him.  They  asked  him,  'Has  the  time 
come  for  this  house  to  be  destroyed?'  He  replied,  'No; 
but  Joachim  has  rebelled  against  me.  Deliver  him' up  to 

*  Compare  in  Exodus  xxxii.,  verses  31  and  32,  to  verse  10. 
Yerushalmi,  Sanhedrin  vi.  3. 


26  POLITICAL  NECESSITY  AND  JEWISH  ETHICS. 

me,  and  I  will  go.'     The  men  came  to  Joachim  and  said, 
'Nebuchadnezzar    wants  thee.'     Then   he   said,  'Are  you 
dealing  thus,  abandoning  one  life  for  another,  abandon- 
ing my    life  to  save  yours  ?     Is  it  not    written    in  the 
Law,  Thou  shalt   not  deliver  up  a  servant  to  his    mas- 
ter ?'     They  replied,  'Thy  sire  (David)  has  not  heeded 
this1  in  the  case  of  Seba,    son  of  Bichri.'   As   he  would 
not   listen    to   them,   they    took    him,    bound    him,    de- 
livered him  up  to  the  king,  and  he  was  killed  with  great 
cruelty.     Nebuchadnezzar  appointed  in  place  of  Joachim, 
his  son  Jechoniah.     When  he  arrived  at  his  home,  all  the 
Babylonians  went  forth  to  salute  him.  They  asked, ' What 
liast  thou  done?'  to  which  he  replied,    'Joachim  rebelled 
against  me,  I  slew  him,  and  appointed  Jechoniah  in  his 
place.'  But  they  said,  'The  proverb  is,  Raise  not  the  good 
dog  of  a  wicked  breed,  much  less  the  wicked  dog  of  a 
wicked    breed.'     He   took    the    advice    and  returned  to 
Daphne  of  Antioch.     Again  the  great  Sanhedrin  came  to 
meet  him,  and  asked,  'Has  the  time  come  for  this  house  to 
be  destroyed  ?'     He  said,  'No;  give  me  him  whom  I  have 
made  king,  and  I  will  leave.'     They  went  to  Jechoniah 
and  said,  'Nebuchadnezzar  wants  thee.'  Hereupon  Jecho- 
niah took  all  the  keys  of  the  temple,  went  up  to  the  top 
of  the  roof,    and  said,  'O   God,    thou  dost   consider  us 
worthy  no  longer  to  be  thy  stewards.     Hitherto  we  were 
thy  faithful  husbandmen  ;  but  now — here  are  thy  keys.' 
Some  maintain,  a  hand  of  fire  came  out  of  heaven  and 
received  the  keys.    Others  say,  he  threw  them  heaven- 
ward, and   they   fell  down    no  more.     Then  the  young 
men  of  Israel  mounted  their  roofs  and  threw  themselves 
down.    So  Nebuchadnezzar  came,  took  Jechoniah  and  put 
him  in  a  dungeon,  and  none  of  those  captured  with  him 
ever  left  their  prison ;  and  he  exiled  Jechoniah  and  the 
great  Sanhedrin  with  him."5* 

We  have  translated  literally  and  all  of  it ;  because  it  is 
directly  to  the  point  at  issue,  so  that  one  feels  tempted  to 
believe  it  was  written  to  illustrate  the  very  case  of  Caia- 
phas  versus  Jesus.  We  learn  from  this  Yeruslialmi  pass- 
age, in  the  first  place,  that  the  conduct  of  David  or  his 

*  Yerushalmi  Shekalim,  vi.  3.  This  passage  is  entirely  disfig- 
ured by  omissions,  in  the  Krotoschin  edition  of  1866;  although 
it  is  complete  in  the  large  Ein  Jacob,  Furth,  Part  ii.,  No.  45  ;  and 
with  additional  glossaries  in  Leviticus  Rabbah,  chapter  xvi., 
toward  the  end. 


THE   SECRET   CONCLAVE.  27 

captain  toward  Seba,  son  of  IJirhri,  was  considered  a  crime. 
David  had  set  a  precedence,  tor  which  alter  four  centuries 
his  scion,  Joachim,  suffered,  Caiaphas  might  have  pointed 
to  the  same  precedence  in  regard  to  Jesus,  if  he  had  main- 
tained to  be  a  Davidian.  But  he  never  did.  On  the 
contrary,  he  denied  it  in  clear  language.*  It  "'as  main- 
tained for  him,  after  his  death,  in  order  to  fit  certain 
IJible  passages  into  his  life  and  the  Messianic  drama. 

In  the  next  place,  we  learn  from  the  above  Yerushalmi 
passage,  that  the  conduct  of  the  Sanhedrin  toward  King 
Joachim  also  was  considered  a  crime,  notwithstanding  the 
precedence.  For  not  only  did  the  treachery  do  them  no 
good,  os  Nebuchadnezzar  returns  and  after  all  punishes 
them,  but  also  their  conduct  on  the  second  occasion  proves 
that  they  were  wrong  in  the  first  act.  The  second  time 
they  say,  they  would  not  save  God's  temple  by  treachery 
and  wickedness;  the  young  men  preferred  suicide  to  trea- 
son, and  the  great  Sanhedrin  went  into  exile  with  their 
king,  in  preference  to  betraying  him.  The  French  mag- 
nates have  not  done  so  to  Napoleon  L,  after  the  battle  of 
Waterloo.  These  sacrifices,  however,  were  not  made,  be- 
cause Jechoniah  was  their  king ;  they  were  made  because 
it  was  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  law,  based  upon 
Deuteronomy,  xxiii.  16:  life  must  not  be  saved  by  sacrific- 
ing any  innocent  man.  Therefore  any  private  citizen  had 
precisely  the  same  right  and  the  same  claim  to  the  na- 
tion's protection,  as  King  Jechoniah  had;  and  the  advice 
of  Caiaphas,  concerning  Jesus,  was  given  in  violation  of 
a  fundamental  principle  of  Jewish  law. 

In  the  third  place,  the  passage  before  us  suggests,  that 
the  principle  in  question  was  considered  so  well  estab- 
lished and  so  old,  that  the  tradition  committed  to  writing 
in  the  third  century  A.  c.,  places  it  up  into  the  sixth  cen- 
tury B.  c.,  as  well  known  and  well  understood  then  by  no 
less  an  authority  than  the  great  Sanhedrin,  then  the 
highest  one  of  the  nation  at  that  time.  In  common  law, 
traditions  of  this  kind  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  and 
so  this  was  to  the  ancient  expounders  of  Jewish  law.  On 
proper  occasions,  it  re-appears  as  an  undisputed  princi- 
ple throughout  the  Mishna,  Talmud,  and  Midrash.  It 
was  cast  into  the  formula  C'sDJ  O£JD  COj  }T?n  PK  "No 
human  life  must  be  abandoned  on  account  of  any 

*  Mark,  xii.  35  to  37,  and  parallel  passages. 


28         POLITICAL   NECESSITY    AND   JEWISH    ETHICS. 

(other)  life ;"  or  literally,  "  We  abandon  no  person 
on  account  of  a  person. "  *  Therefore,  when  in  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century  A.  c.,  the  violent 
persecutions,  chiefly  against  the  observation  of  Jewish 
law  and  custom,  rendered  it  necessary  that  the  teachers 
should  advise  the  people  to  abandon  every  law  and  cus- 
tom of  Israel  whenever  necessary  to  save  human  life,  and 
it  had  been  made  a  maxim,  "  Whoever  saves  one  life  in 
Israel,  has  done  as  well  as  though  he  had  observed  all 
the  Law ;  and  whoever  sacrifices  one  is  as  wicked  as 
though  he  had  transgressed  every  provision  of  the  Law;" 
also  then  it  was  maintained,  that  all  the  laws  and  customs 
may  be  set  aside  to  save  life,  except  these  three — viz., 
IDOLATRY,  INCEST,  and  MURDER.  By  either  of  these 
crimes,  none  must  save  either  his  own  life  or  that  of 
others.  The  Talmud  comments  on  this  last  point  thus  : 
"Who  will  tell  that  thy  blood  is  redder  (or  sweeter)?  per- 
haps the  blood  of  that  (sacrificed)  man  is  reder  than 
thine.77  Glossaries  have  added  thereto,  "  To  suffer  mar- 
tyrdom is  one  sin,  viz.,  the  destruction  of  human  life  ;  to 
escape  it  by  murder  is  a  double  sin,  viz.  murder  to  the 
subject  and  destruction  of  human  life  to  the  object."  The 
principle  under  discussion  was  also  applied  in  the  law  of 
self-defense,  but  this  is  foreign  to  our  purpose,  although  it 
ought  to  be  studied  by  some  of  our  legislators  and  judges. 
Only  in  case  of  a  direct  attack  upon  a  person  with  the  in- 
tent to  kill,  and  the  attack  can  not  be  dodged  or  repelled 
without  murder,  not  even  by  the  sacrifice  of  a  limb,  the 
law  acknowledges  the  maxim  of  Rabbi  Akiba  "T^H 
*p»Dn  »nS  D'EHlp  :  "Thy  life  has  the  precedence  to 

the  life  of  thy  neighbor,"  viz.,  in  the  Biblical  passage, 
"  That  thy  brother  live  with  thee."  In  all  other  cases  the 
law  adheres  to  the  principle  under  discussion,  as  exempli- 
fied by  Ben  Petora  :  "  If  two  travel  in  the  wilderness,  and 
but  one  of  them  has  left  a  bottle  of  water;  if  both  drink 
thereof,  both  must  die  before  they  can  reach  an  inhabited 
place,  and  if  only  one  drinks  thereof,  he  may  live  to  reach 
an  inhabited  place,  and  his  neighbor  dies — how  must  he 
do?  They  must  divide  the  water,  and  die  both."f 

There  can  not  be  any  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  Jewish 

*  Babli,  Sanhedrin  72  6.,  and  parallel  passages. 
t  Saphra,  Behar,  Paresah  v. ;  Baba  Mezia,  62  a. 


TIM-:  SI:<M:I:T  CONCLAVE.  29 

law  in  the  time  of  Jesus  was  based  upon  the  principle  of 
.-olidarity,  viz.,  (he  State  has  the  duty  to  protect  with  all  its 
power  every  one  of  its  members,  and  has  no  right  what- 
ever to  withdraw  this  protection  from  any  one,  however 
Useful, beneficial, or  prudent  his  death  may  appear  to  one, 
more,  or  all  persons, unless  he  be  ti  criminal  convicted  ac- 
e.irdiuL:;  t<>  law,  of  a  crime  which  the  law  punishes  with 
death.  The  moralists  of  those  days  went  so  far  in  this 
point  as  to  maintain,  it  was  not  merely  the  letter  of  the 
law,  but  it  was  the  deeply  seated  sentiment  of  the  Hebrew 
people.  One  of  them  said  this:  "  Israel  is  a  scattered 
sheep  (Hock),  said  the  prophet  Jeremiah  (L.  17).  It  was 
Nebuchadnezzar  who  compared  Israel  to  a  wounded 
sheep.  As  a  sheep  wounded  in  one  of  its  limbs  feels  it  in 
all  of  them,  so  Israel;  if  one  of  them  is  killed,  all  the 
others  feel  it  and  feel  the  affliction.  It  is  otherwise  among 
Heathens;  if  one  of  them  is  killed,  all  the  others  rejoice 
over  his  downfall."*  The  rabbinical  formula  for  the 
principle  of  solidarity  is:  HD  Ht 
"All  Israel  are  surety  for  one  another.' 

The  Hebrew  people  had  just  set  an  example  of  their 
fidelity  to  the  laws,  which  Caiaphas  might  have  imitated. 
Josephus  narrates  (Antiq.,  xviii.,  iii.)  when  Pontius  Pil- 
ate removed  his  army  from  Cesarea  to  Jerusalem,  he  had 
the  intention  to  abolish  the  Jewish  laws.  He  began  with 
having  carried  into  the  city  the  ensigns  with  Csesar's  ef- 
figy on  them.  Multitudes  of  Jews  came  to  Cesarea  to  re- 
monstrate against  this  violation  of  the  law  ;  but  Pilate 
insisted  upon  it.  Not  being  able  to  pacify  the  Jews  or 
to  get  them  out  of  Cesarea,  he  gave  orders  to  his  soldiers 
to  surround  the  square  of  the  judgment  seat.  When  the 
Jews  came  again,  he  ordered  the  soldiers  to  surround 
them,  and  then  he  threatened  the  petitioners  with  instant 
death,  unless  they  would  leave  him  forthwith  and  go 
home.  "  But  they  threw  themselves  upon  the  ground, 
and  laid  their  necks  bare,  and  said  they  would  take  their 
death  very  willingly,  rather  than  the  wisdom  of  their 
laws  should  be  transgressed."  This  moved  Pilate  to 
countermand  his  orders  and  to  have  the  images  carried 
back  from  Jerusalem.  In  the  face  of  this  fact,  the  high- 
priest  and  his  conspirators  had  no  excuse  for  the  violation 

•Mechilta,  Mesichta,  Debachodesh,  II. 


30  THE   TWO   ACCOUNTS. 

of  the  law.  It  was  their  duty  to  exercise  their  influence 
upon  the  people,  to  keep  the  peace,  to  act  prudently  and 
cautiously,  or  to  send  Jesus  and  his  disciples  to  a  foreign 
country  to  stay  there  until  the  mania  abated. 

So  we  are  led  back  to  our  starting-point  in  this  chapter. 
These  chief  priests  and  scribes,  who  conspired  against  Je- 
sus, were  no  representative  men  in  Israel.  They  were  Is- 
rael's despots  and  the  tools  of  Roman  masters.  This  doc- 
trine of  political  necessity,  first  uttered  by  another  Roman 
hireling,  Herod  of  Galilee,*  was  not  of  Jewish  origin, 
and  received  not  the  sanction  of  the  Jews.  It  was 
truly  Roman  ;  so  much  so,  that  also  the  very  first 
Christian  princes  on  Rome's  throne,  the  sons  of  Con- 
stantine  the  Great,  assassinated  their  cousins  from  mo- 
tives of  political  necessity,  f  In  the  Roman  law 
the  State  is  the  main  object,  for  which  the  individual 
must  live  and  die,  with  or  against  his  will.  In  Jewish 
law,  the  person  is  the  main  object  for  which  the  State 
must  live  and  die;  because  the  fundamental  idea  of  the 
Roman  law  is  power,  and  the  fundamental  idea  of  Jewish 
law  is  justice.  Therefore  Caiaphas  and  his  conspirators 
did  not  act  from  the  Jewish  standpoint.  They  repre- 
sented Rome,  her  principles,  interests,  and  barbarous  ca- 
prices. 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE  LAST    SUPPER. 
I.      THE  TWO   ACCOUNTS. 

A  review  of  the  "  Last  Supper "  which  Jesus  took 
with  his  select  disciples,  as  reported  by  the  evangelists, 
will  disclose  another  feature  of  the  story,  the  very  coun- 
terpart of  the  one  just  exhibited. 

The  Synoptics  agree  that  Jesus  ate  his  last  meal  in  the 
city  of  Jerusalem,  with  his  twelve  select  disciples,  and 
that  meal  was  the  Paschal  supper,  which  all  Hebrews  in 
the  city,  residents  and  pilgrims,  ate  with  great  solemnity, 
after  the  lambs  or  kids  had  been  slaughtered  in  the  tem- 

*  Josephus,  Antiqu.  xvii.,  v.  2. 

f  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  iv.  century,  1,  part  1,  xi. 


THE    LAST    SUPPKR.  31 

pic  court,  and  the  blood  sprinkled  MS  the  Law  prescribes. 
John  also  speaks  of  a  last  supper  which  Jesus  ate  with. 
his  chosen  disciples  ( John,  xiii.  2,  4),  but  he  says  it  was 
hrl'orc  Kastcr  (verse  1),  consequently  it  was  not  the 
Paschal  supper,  especially  as  according  to  John  the  cru- 
cifixion took  place  the  d'ay  before  the  feast  (Ibid,,  xix. 
14>,  Mini  the  Paschal  lamb  was  slaughtered  in  the  af.er- 
noon  oi'that  very  day,  the  fourteenth  day  of  Nissan,  to  be 
consumed  that  evening  at  the  opening  of  the  feast.  This 
was  the  law  in  Israel, as  ordained  in  Exodus  (xii.,  1  to  28). 

No  doubt  is  left  as  to  the  time  when  the  Paschal  lamb 
was  killed  and  the  flesh  eaten  with  unleavened  bread  and 
bitter  herbs.  The  Law  is  explicit  on  this  point.  It  ap- 
points the  fourteenth  day  of  Nissan  for  this  observance 
(Exodus,  xii.  6,  and  Numbers,  ix.,  1  to  5).  It  permits  only 
one  exception  to  this  rule,  viz.,  for  those  who  are  unclean 
or  out  on  a  long  journey,  who  might  make  the  Passa  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  next  month  (Ibid.,  9  to  14).  In  both 
cases  it  stipulates  the  precise  time, "  between  twilight,"  of 
the  fourteenth  to  the  fifteenth  day.  So  was  the  Passover 
kept  by  Joshua  (v.  10),  by  Hezekiah  (2  Chron.,  xxx. 
15),  by  Joshiah  (Ibid.,  xxxviii.  1),  and  by  Zerubabel 
(Ezra,  vi.  19).  The  Bible  adheres  strictly  to  the  evening 
of  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  as  the  time  of 
the  Paschal  meal. 

The  next  source  before  us,  to  ascertain  this  point,  is 
the  Mishnah,  and  there  (Pesachirn  v.)  the  precise  time  is 
stated.  The  slaughtering  of  the  lambs  began  after  the 
evening  sacrifice  was  finished,  on  the  fourteenth  day  of 
Nissan,  and  no  other  day,  which  was  half  past  two 
p.  M.,  except  on  Friday,  when  it  was  done  at  half 
past  one  P.  M.,  on  account  of  the  approaching  Sabbath. 
So  the  slaughtering  of  the  lambs  began  about  three 
p.  M.,  or  on  Friday  at  two  P.  M.  The  approach  of  the 
evening  closed  the  slaughtering,  the  people  left  the  temple 
mount,  roasted  the  lambs  and  ate  the  Paschal  meal.  Ex- 
actly the  same  time  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Wars,  vi., 
ix.  3):  "  From  the  ninth  hour  to  the  eleventh,"  which  is 
from  three  to  five  p.  M. 

There  is  no  opportunity  left  to  the  harmonizers  to 
make  one  story  of  the  two.  According  to  John,  Jesus  ate 
no  Paschal  meal,  did  not  live  to  see  that  feast  again,  was 
captured  the  evening  before  Passover,  and  was  crucified 


32  THE    MESSENGERS    AND    THE    CHAEGE. 

before  the  feast  opened.  According  to  the  Synoptics, 
Jesus  partook  of  the  Paschal  supper,  was  captured  the 
first  night  of  the  feast,  and  executed  on  the  first  day 
thereof,  which  was  on  a  Friday.  We  must  necessarily 
drop  one  date.'  If  John's  is  true,  that  of  the  Synoptics  is 
not,  or  vice  versa.  Agreeably  to  our  canon  of  criticism, 
we  must  drop  John's  date.  The  Church  did  the  same. 
But  at  the  same  time  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  John, 
rejecting  the  Paschal  supper  and  the  establishment  of  the 
eucharistby  Jesus — which  he  intentionally  replaces  by  an- 
other solemn  act,  viz.,  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet — 
either  had  strong  dogmatical  reasons  for  this  change,  or 
he  considered  the  accounts  of  the  Synoptics  unhistorical, 
because  he  was  in  possession  of  other  traditions.  Adopt- 
ing the  first  view  leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  dogma 
or  the  observance  to  be  set  forth,  had  more  weight  with 
John  than  the  historical  fact.  Adopting  the  second  view 
leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  at  the  time  when  John's 
gospel  was  written,  it  was  by  no  means  certain  or  gener- 
ally believed  by  Christians,  that  Jesus  ate  the  Paschal 
meal,  as  his  last  supper,  and  then  and  there  established 
the  eucharist,  although  Paul  had  said  so.  Following,  as 
we  must,  the  story  of  the  Synoptics,  we  will  now  review  it 
in  detail. 

II.      THE    MESSENGERS    AND    THE    CHARGE. 

Mark  (xiv.  12)  and  Matthew  (xxvi.  17)  report  that  on 
the  fourteenth  day  of  Nissan  the  disciples  asked  Jesus 
where  he  wished  to  eat  the  Paschal  lamb ;  so  that  it  ap- 
pears, he  did  not  think  of  it,  had  not  the  disciples  sug- 
gested it.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  name  which  these 
two  evangelists  give  to  that  day.  Matthew  calls  it  the 
first  day  of  the  feast  of  the  unleavened  bread,  and  Mark 
calls  it  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread;  nevertheless 
both  refer  to  the  same  day,  which  was  a  feast  in  Galilee, 
no  work  being  done  that  day,  and  was  none  in  Judea, 
where  manual  labor  was  suspended  only  in  the  afternoon  ; 
while  in  both  provinces,  no  leavened  bread  was  used  that 
dav  after  the  fifth  hour,  so  that  it  was  properly  called  the 
first  day  of  unleavened  bread. 

But  this  merely  proves,  that  Mark  wrote  from  tradi- 
tions current  in  Judea,  and  Matthew  derived  his  from  Gal- 
ilee,* where  this  custom  was  observed  also  in  the  second 

*  Mishnah,  Pesachim  iv.  5. 


HIE    LAST   SUPPER.  33 

century,*  iind  is  one  more  evidence  in  our  favor  concern- 
ing Mark. 

Luke  (xxii.  7)  differs  from  his  two  predecessors  in  two 
points.  He  does  not  say  that,  the  diseiples  reminded 
Jesus,  Imt  lie  on  liis  own  account  sent  two  of  them  to  the 
city  to  prepare  the  meal  ;  and  states  plainly  it  was  not  on 
the  fourteenth  day  of  Nissan  hut  at  least  one  day  pre- 
vious, as  is  evident  from  his  expression,  "Then  came  the 
day  of  unleavened  bread,"  so  that  it  had  not  come  yet. 
Luke  adds  the  names  of  those  two  disciples,  Peter  and 
John.  One  might  be  led  to  believe,  he  had  additional 
and  reliable  sources  and  contradicts  his  colleagues,  there- 
fore, in  the  important  moments  of  time,  motive,  and  per- 
sons— if  it  was  not  so  extremely  easy  to  discover  his 
motives.  Luke  was  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
or  at  least  a  portion  thereof.  In  that  book,  Peter  and 
John  are  represented  as  the  heads  of  the  Apostolic  college, 
after  the  death  of  Jesus.  By  what  right  did  they  occupy 
that  position?  They  were  neither  more  learned  nor  more 
inspired  than  the  others.  Luke  looks  ahead,  and  has  them 
appointed  by  Jesus  as  his  messengers  to  prepare  the  Pass- 
over for  him.  It  was  a  rule  among  the  ancient  Hebrews, 
"A  man's  messenger  is  like  unto  himself,"  i.  e.,  he  exercises 
the  same  authority,  in  certain  points,  of  course.  This 
rule  was  derived  from  the  ancient  custom  prevailing  in 
preparing  the  Passover  lamb,  which,  according  to  the 
letter  of  the  Law  (Exodus,  xii.  3),  ought  to  be  provided 
and  slaughtered  by  every  Israelite  for  himself,  but  it  was 
held,  it  might  be  done  by  a  messenger. f  This  was  writ- 
ten in  the  Mechilta  of  Rabbi  Ishmael  (Bo,  chapters 
iii.  and  v.),  which  Luke  must  have  seen,  as  that  rabbi 
was  au  elder  contemporary  of  Mark.  Luke  embraced 
this  favorable  opportunity  to  have  Peter  and  John  ap- 
pointed  to  exercise  the  authority  of  Jesus,  most  likely 
with  the  intention  of  conciliation  among  Paul-Christians 
and  Peter-Christians,  each  of  whom  claimed  direct  ap- 
pointment for  their  respective  apostle.  But  we  will  not 
ar^ue  this  point  now,  as  we  must  chronicle  several 
other  points  in  this  chapter,  in  which  Luke  departs  from 
the  statements  of  his  predecessors. 

Mark  informs  us  next,  that  Jesus  sent  two  of  his  dis- 

*  Ibid  6. 

f  inicD  DIN  sp  inVw  ncN  1*02  are  the  words  in  the  Mechilta. 


34  THE    MESSENGEKS     AND   THE    CHARGE. 

ciples  to  the  city,  and  told  them  this :  "  Go  ye  into  the 
city,  and  there  shall  meet  3*011  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of 
water;  follow  him.  And  wheresoever  he  shall  go  in,  say 
ye  to  the  good  man  of  the  house,  the  Master  saith,  Where 
is  the  guest-chamber,  where  I  shall  eat  the  Passover  with 
my  disciples  ?  And  he  will  show  you  a  large  upper  room, 
furnished  and  prepared  ;  there  make  ready  for  us.  And 
his  disciples  went  forth,  and  came  into  the  city,  and  found 
as  he  had  said  unto  them;  and  they  made  ready  the  Pass- 
over." There  are  two  miracles  in  this  account.  The 
first  is  the  man  with  the  pitcher  of  water  who  should 
guide  the  disciples  to  the  right  house,  which  is  an  imita- 
tion of  Rebecca  guiding  Elieser  to  the  right  place,  when 
he  met  her  at  the  well  (Genesis,  xxiv.);  and  of  the  widow 
at  Zarephath,  whom  Elijah  met  somewhere  near  the  well, 
to  lead  him  to  her  house  (1  Kings,  xvii.  8);  only  that  in 
Mark's  account,  the  damsel  and  the  widow  are  replaced 
by  a  man.  How  did  Mark  come  by  this  embellishment? 
Idle  imitated  the  old  rabbinical  story  of  the  prophet  Eli- 
jah and  that  widow,  whose  son  died  suddenly,  and  that 
son  was  no  other  personage,  according  to  tradition,  than 
Jonah.  The  widow  accused  the  prophet,  her  son  had 
died  on  account  of  his  presence  in  her  house.  Then  Eli- 
jah prayed,  "  O  Lord  of  the  universe,  is  it  not  enough 
that  so  many  afflictions  have  passed  over  my  head  :  why 
must  I  also  bear  the  accusation  of  this  hapless  woman  ? 
O  teach  coming  generations  that  the  dead  will  resurrect ; 
give  back  the  soul  to  this  child. "  God  granted  his  pray- 
er, and  the  rabbis  learn  from  the  event  that  the  dead  will 
resurrect  in  reward  of  charity.*  Mark  begins  here  a 
story,  the  end  of  which  is  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  The 
object  of  this  resurrection  was  the  same,  as  expressed  in 
Elijah's  prayer,  that  coming  generations  (or  the  present 
generation  with  Paul)  may  know  that  the  dead  will  res- 
urrect. Having  this  popular  legend  before  him,  Mark, 
or  somebody  before  him,  was  naturally  led  back  to  Elijah's 
arrival  at  Zarephath — the  well,  the  pitcher  of  water,  the 
marvelous  discovery  of  the  right  house  in  the  two  cases 
mentioned;  and  he  embellished  his  story  accordingly. 

The  next  miracle  in  Mark's  narrative  is,  that  a  man  in 
Jerusalem  should  have  vacant  a  furnished  and  prepared 
upper  room,  when  two  millions  of  pilgrims  sojourned  in 

*  Pirke  Rabbi  Elieser,  Chapter  33. 


Tin:  LAST  SUPPER.  35 

and  around  the  city.  The  man,  it  appears,  was  not  <lis- 
tiiiLrnUhed  tor  cither  wealth  or  piety;  tor  his  name  is  not 
mentioned,  lie  \v  is  not  present  at  the  supper,  and  no  fur- 
ther reference  is  made  to  him.  It  rather  appears  Mark 
thought  of  an  ordinary  man,  \vho  had  a  furnished  room 
to  let  tor  such  purposes,  and  Jesus  knew  it  prophetically. 
Mark  had  not  far  to  travel  to  discover  that  room,  only 
from  Elijah  to  his  disciple  Klisha,  for  whom  that  great 
woman  ofShonem,  the  Shunamith,  had  furnishe<l  so  rich- 
ly an  upper  chamber  (2  Kings,  iv.  8).  Why  should 
not  somebody  have  also  furnished  an  upper  room  for  the 
M<  —  iah  ? 

Matthew,  it  appears,  understood  that  these  embellish- 
ments were  mere  imitations,  and  therefore  his  account  of 
the  affair  runs  thus:  Jesus  simply  said  to  some  of  his 
disciples — the  number  is  not  given — "Go  into  the  city,  to 
such  a  man,  and  say  unto  him,  the  Master  saith,  My  time 
is  at  hand  ;  I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy  house  \vith  mv 
disciples.  And  the  disciples  did  as  Jesus  had  appointed 
them."  Xo  pitcher,  no  man,  no  water,  no  miracle  at  all 
is  mentioned  in  this  simple  order  and  its  execution.  Mat- 
thew would  not  even  take  for  granted  that  just  two  of  his 
disciples  went  on  that  errand;  two,  more,  or  all  of  them 
may  have  gone  to  the  city,  and  Jesus  met  them  at  the  ap- 
pointed house  and  hour,  as  it  actually  appears  from  verse 
20. 

Imagine  now  the  dilemma  of  Luke  with  these  two  con- 
flicting accounts  before  him.  The  best  he  could  do  was, 
to  make  use  of  both.  In  the  eighth  verse,  he  uses  the 
account  of  Matthew.  In  the  ninth  he  introduces  the 
Dew  question,  "Where  shall  we  prepare  it?"  to  bring 
in  literally,  in  verse  ten,  etc.,  the  account  of  Mark.  It  was 
too  much  for  Luke  that  Jesus  should  have  waited  to 
the  last  day  with  the  preparation  for  the  Paschal  meal, 
and  that  then  he  had  to  be  reminded  of  it  by  his  disciples  ; 
therefore,  in  the  first  instance,  he  changed  the  accounts 
of  Matthew  and  Mark.  He  could  not  well  omit  Mark's 
miracles  in  his  account,  being  a  welcome  embellishment, 
nor  could  he  ignore  Matthew's  simple  narrative  of  the  af- 
fair; and  he  contrived  to  unite  them  into  one.  Remark- 
able, however,  it  might  appear,  that  Matthew  alone  has 
the  words,  "My  time  is  at  hand."  But  the  thing  is  simple. 
Mark  and  Luke  having  brought  in  the  prophetical  knowl- 


36  THE   OPENING    OF   THE   SUPPER, 

edge  of  Jesus  by  the  miracles  mentioned,  had  no  neces- 
sity for  the  words  of  Matthew  put  in  with  the  same  in- 
tention, because  he  rejected  those  miracles. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  neither  of  these  accounts 
was  taken  from  any  original  gospel;  that  none  of  the 
evangelists  cared  particularly  to  report  correctly  the  words 
of  Jesus;  that  Mark  may  have  been  the  inventor  of  those 
miracles,  or  he  may  have  received  them  traditionally  of 
the  congregation  where  he  lived,  while  Matthew's  con- 
gregation did  not  have  that  tradition  ;  and  that  we  do 
not  know  what  Jesus  said  on  that  occasion.  The  only  fact 
in  which  the  Synoptics  agree,  is  that  Jesus  sent  some  of 
his  disciples  to  the  city,  to  make  secret  preparations  to  eat 
together  the  Paschal  meal ;  and  also  this  is  doubtful,  not 
merely  on  account  of  the  silence  of  John  on  all  these 
points,  but  on  account  of  the  miracles  and  prophetical 
vision  in  this  connection,  and  the  outspoken  object  of  each 
evangelist  in  shaping  the  story  as  he  did. 

Important  in  this  fact,  if  such  it  is,  is  the  secrecy. 
Jesus,  or  his  disciples,  must  have  known  wrell  that  he 
was  not  safe  anywhere  in  the  city,  except  among  the 
crowd  on  the  temple  mount.  The  evangelists  give  us  to 
understand  that  he  never  remained  in  the  city  overnight; 
while  Luke  expressly  states  (xxii.  39)  that  Jesus  went  the 
last  night  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  "as  he  was  wont,"  viz., 
as  he  did  every  night.  It  appears  even,  that  in  the  sub- 
urbs also,  he  preferred  the  least  occupied  spots,  in  order 
to  evade  discovery  and  surprise.  Therefore  the  evangel- 
ists agree  that  he  took  meals  in  the  house  of  Simon  the 
leper,  since  the  lepers'  homes  were  shunned  by  every 
Hebrew,  as  they  are  to-day  in  the  same  locality,  by  the 
inhabitants  not  afflicted  with  that  horrible  disease. 

III.      THE    OPENING    OF    THE   SUPPER. 

When  it  was  evening,  as  Matthew  says ;  or  in  the 
evening,  as  Mark  has  it — the  proper  time  was  before  the 
approach  of  night — Jesus  sat  down  with  twelve  of  his 
disciples  to  eat  the  Paschal  supper.  According  to  Mark 
and  Matthew,  the  solemn  rneal  was  opened  without  grace 
or  benediction.  During  the  meal  Jesus  spoke  of  him 
who  would  betray  him.  No  ceremony  was  performed 
until  the  meal  was  nearly  over,  when  Jesus  broke  the 
bread  and  spoke  the  benediction  over  the  wine.  If  any 
evidence  is  required  that  neither  Mark  nor  Matthew  had 


Tin:   LAST  sriM'Kii.  37 

seen  the  Paschal  meal,  or  described  that  of  Jesus,  it 
is  furnished  ri-j;ht  here.  They  do  not  mention  any  one 
|)oi:it  connected  with  the  Paschal  supper,  the  ceremonies 
of  which  weiv  < -i -iblis'.ed,  as  we  shall  describe  below. 
They  mention  only  one  ceremony,  viz.,  the  breaking  of 
the  bread,  and  the  cup  of  wine  after  the  meal,  which  is 
not  only  a  mistake,  but  shows  conclusively  that  cither 
of  them  had  seen  the  Paschal  supper,  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  in  some  Jewish  house,  and  the  cere- 
monies connected  therewith,  called  the  Seder.  Therefore 
no  mention  whatsoever  is  made  of  the  main  thing — the 
Paschal  lamb — and  the  bread  is  broken  after  the  meal, 
which  was  done  by  the  Jews  after  closing  the  Paschal 
meal,  outside  of  Jerusalem,  when  the  altar  had  been  de- 
stroyed; and  no  Paschal  lamb  was  eaten.  They  called 
that  last  piece  of  bread  Aphikoman,  and  still  call  it  so,  to 
take  the  place  of  the  dessert  after  the  meal. 

The  ceremonies  at  the  Paschal  meal  in  Jerusalem — the 
altar  still  in  existence — are  minutely  and  precisely  de- 
scribed in  the  Mishnah  (Pesachim  x.)  and  elsewhere.  The 
proceedings  were  thus:  All  leaning  upon  the  cushions 
around  the  table,  the  first  cup  of  wine  was  served,1  and 
grace  pronounced  over  the  same  and  the  feast,  in  words 
still  preserved  in  every  Hebrew  prayer-book.  This  cup 
of  wine  being  disposed  of,  vegetables  and  sauce  were 
placed  on  the  table,  and  the  vegetables,  dipped  in  the 
sauce,  were  blessed  and  eaten.  Next  the  unleavened  bread, 
the  bitter  herb,  and  a  piquant  sauce  called  Haroseth — still 
well  known  among  Jews — were  served,  and  the  bitter 
herb,  dipped  in  the  Haroseth,  was  blessed  and  eaten.  Then 
the  Paschal  lamb  was  placed  on  the  table  with  portions  of 
another  sacrifice.  One  of  the  company  asked  the  que-- 
tion,  why  all  this  was  done,  during  which  the  second  cup 
of  wine  was  served.  TLe  head  of  the  table  explaining, 
narrated  the  story  of  the  exode,  closed  with  a  hymn, 
sp •>!<••  the  second  time  grace  over  the  wine,  and  all  dis- 
j)o-ed  of  the  same.  Now  came  the  breaking  of  the  bread 
and  the  eating  and  drinking.  This  finished,  the  third 
cup  of  wine  was  served,  and  grace  after  meal  was  pro- 
nounced. Alter  which  the  fourth  cup  was  served,  and  the 
ceremonies  closed  with  hymns  and  psalms,  and  disposing 
of  the  fourth  cup  of  wine. 

Luke  was  aware  that  Mark  and  Matthew  had  not  given 


38          THE  OPENING  OF  THE  SUPPER. 

a  correct  description  of  the  Paschal  supper,  and  attempt- 
ed to  improve  the  report.     He  begins  the  supper  thus : 

"  And  he  said  unto  them  :  With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat 
this  passover  with  you  before  I  suffer :  for  I  say  unto  you  I  will 
not  any  more  eat  thereof,  until  it  be  fulfilled  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  said :  lake 
this,  and  divide  it  among  yourselves:  for  I  say  unto  you,  1  wi 
not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  kingdom  of  God  shall 
,-ome  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  unto  them,  saying,  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you  ; 
this  do  in  remembrance  of  me." 

Luke  begins  correctly,  but  makes  a  mistake  in  having 
the  bread   broken  right  after  the  first  cup  of  wine  was 
handed  round,  which  was  done  so  at  every  festive  meal, 
except  at  the  one  described,  and  has  but  two  cups  of  wine 
instead  of  four.     So  we  know  that  Luke  did  not  describe 
what  actually  happened  that  evening.     He  had  seen  the 
Jewish  custom  of  opening  the  festive  meals  with  grace 
over  the  wine  and  bread,  and  made  of  it  an  introduction 
to   the  last  supper,  without  knowing  that  just  that  even- 
ing  the  custom  was  changed.      Knowing  this,  we  also 
know  what  to  think  of  the  words,  which  Luke  only  has 
Jesus   to  say,    "With  desire  I  have  desired  to  .eat  this 
passover  with  you."     They  are  certainly  Lukes, 
found    no   mention   in  Mark  and  Matthew  of  the  main 
thino-— the  Passover  lamb— and  must  have  known  that  on 
account  of  the  flesh  of  the  lamb,  Jesus,  at  the  risk  of  his 
life    went  to   Jerusalem.     Every  other  dish  or  meal  he 
might  have  enjoyed  outside  of  the  city,  in  his  silent  re- 
treat, and    in  the  undisturbed  company  of  his  friends, 
without  apprehension  of  being  surprised  by  his  enemies. 
But  the  flesh  of  the  Paschal  lamb— such  was  the  law 
(Dent  xvi.  5)— had  to  be  eaten  within  the  limits  of  the 
citv  of  Jerusalem,-  in  a  house  or  court,  and  not  in  the 
street.i     Therefore  Jesus  had  to  go  to  a  room  in  Jerusa- 
lem  and  went  there  even  at  the  risk  of  his  life.     Never- 
theless  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  makes  the  least  men- 
tion  of  the    lamb  itself  or  the  eating   thereof.      I  here- 
fore  Luke  thought  proper  to  write  the  above  introductory 
words.   So  we  do  not  know  what  Jesus  did  or  said  before 
eating  that  last  supper. 

*  See  Maimonides;  H.  Korban  Pesach,  i.  3,  and  the  sources  in 
loco  cit. 

t  Ibid.,  i.  5. 


TUT.    LABI    sm-PER.  39 

IV.       .in>.\s    is<  ARIOT    AND    THE   SITUATION. 

What  did   .JeMis  say  or  do  during  the  meal?      Mark 
(xiv.  18)  replies  thus: 

"And  as  they  sat  and  did  eat, /lesus  said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
our  <>f  you  w'hieh  eateth  with  me  shall  betray  me.  And  Uiey 
beir.m  to  be  sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto  him  one  hy  one,  Is  it  I? 
and  another  said.  Is  it  I  ?  And  lie  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
It  is  one  of  the  twelve  that  dip)>eth  with  me  in  the  dish.  The 
Son  of  man  indeed  iroeth,  as  it  is  written  of  him  ;  but  woe  to  that 
man  by  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed!  good  were  it  for  thai, 
man  if  he  had  never  been  born." 

Matthew  adds  to  this  (xxvi.  25)  that  Judas  asked  Je- 
sus,   "  Master,  is  it  I  ?"    to  which  Jesus  replied,    "  Thou 
iiast  said  it."     According  to  Mark,  Jesus  suspected  one  of 
the  twelve  without  naming  him  ;    but  according  to  Mat- 
thew, the  suspected  one  was  Judas  Iscariot,  and  Jesus  said 
so  to  his  face.     Luke  informs  us  (xxii.  23)  that  the  dis- 
ciples inquired  among  themselves  who  of  them  might  be 
the  traitor,  and  brings  in  a  new  conversation :  " And  there 
was  also  a  strife  among  them,  which  of  them  should  be 
accounted  the  greatest,"  which  ends  with  the  exoneration 
of  Peter,  that  he  was  not  the  traitor,  and  leaving  one  to 
believe   that  the  eleven  remaining  might  all  have  been 
the  traitors   in  the  estimation  of  Jesus.     We  have  evi- 
dently   to  deal   here  with  two  different  narratives :    one 
that  Jesus  pointed  out  the  traitor,  and  another  that  he  did 
not.     This  difference  is  very  important.     If  Jesus  indeed 
pointed    out,   before   all  the  disciples,  Judas  as  the  sus- 
pected  traitor,  we  can  only  understand  it  as  an  indirect 
suggestion  to  go  and  to  commit  the  treachery  forthwith. 
"  Then  said  Jesus  unto  him,  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly" 
(John,  xxiii.   27).     The  mortification  of  Judas  at  being 
thus  accused  and  exposed  is  sufficient  to  drive  any  man  to 
villainy  if  he  has  not  a  character  of  solid  principles.    The 
only  question  in  this  point,  is,  whether  Matthew's  report 
is  correct :  and  this  is  decided  by  John  in  favor  of  Mat- 
thew. Although  John  denies  the  Paschal  supper,  changes 
the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  entire  situation,  and  makes 
use  of  this  particular  occasion  to  glorify  Peter  and  John, 
as  Luke  had  done  before ;  still  he  confirms  the  statement 
of  Matthew,  that  Jesus  pointed  out  Judas  as  the  traitor, 
induced  him  indirectly  to  do  his  work  speedily,  and  giv- 
ing   him   the  signal  by  a  sop  handed  to  him,  prompted 
him  to  do  the  deed  now  and  forthwith  (John,  xiii.  21  to 


40  JUDAS    ISCAEIOT    AND   THE   SITUATION. 

30).  It  must  he  borne  in  mind  that  with  Mark  and  John 
Judas  does  not  commit  suicide.  The  differences  in  the 
narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke  (in  the  Acts)  concern- 
ing this  suicide,  point  distinctly  to  mythical  traditions ; 
and  John  (xviii.  5,  9),  in  his  narrative  of  the  capture  of 
Jesus,  almost  exonerates  Judas;  at  any  rate,  he  modifies 
the  crime  very  considerably. 

Why  did  Jesus  suggest  to  Judas,  "That  thou  doest,  do 
quickly?"  The  matter  appears  very  plain  to  us.  Like 
(Jaiaphas  and  his  conspirators,  Jesus  must  have  been 
aware  of  the  state  of  political  affairs.  Like  them,  he 
must  have  dreaded  the  popular  demonstration,  ripe  among 
his  admirers,  to  burst  forth  the  very  next  day.  John  (vi. 
15)  informs  us  plainly  that  Jesus  would  have  been  pro- 
claimed King  of  Israel  already  in  Galilee  if  he  had  not 
retreated  "into  a  mountain  himself  alone."  That  Pon- 
tius Pilate  certainly  understood  under  the  title,  Messiah 
the  king  (the  political  chief  of  the  nation),  is  evident  from 
the  superscription  of  the  cross,  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  King 
of  the  Jews,"  which  he  did  not  remove  in  spite  of  all  pro- 
testations of  the  Jews.  Like  Caiaphas,  Jesus  also  must 
have  been  convinced  that  such  a  demonstration  would 
have  cost  thousands  of  lives,  and  would  have  been  fraught 
with  dire  calamities  to  the  whole  people,  without  any 
hope  of  success,  or  even  the  slightest  glimpse  of  good  to 
be  derived  from  the  bloody  conflict.  He  must  have 
known  that  the  combat,  inevitably  to  follow  that  demon- 
stration, first  and  foremost,  would  have  cost  the  lives  of 
his  disciples  and  friends,  and  the  blood  thus  shed — and 
uselessly  shed,  too — would  naturally  fall  to  his  account 
before  the  omniscient  Judge.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was 
in  the  hands  of  his  disciples  and  friends,  who  protected 
and  guarded  him  faithfully  and  jealously,  so  that  his  se- 
cret abode  could  not  easily  be  discovered.  Among  them 
there  were  certainly  not  a  few  patriotic  enthusiasts  who 
acted  with  the  agitated  multitude,  and  waited  impatient- 
ly for  the  demonstration  to  see  the  Master  proclaimed 
King  of  Israel,  who  believed  in  the  success  of  their  pol- 
icy, notwithstanding  the  huge  power  of  Home/  Mad  en- 
terprises of  this  kind  were  not  rare  at  that  time  among 
the  Hebrew  people.  Tens  of  thousands  of  patriotic  men 
and  women  lost  their  lives  in  such  futile  attempts,  rely- 
ing upon  supernatural  aid.  In  this  dilemma,  Jesus  re- 
solved magnanimously  to  sacrifice  himself  to  save  the 


THE    LAST   SUPPER.  41 

lives  ofhis  disciples  and  friends,  and  to  protect  his  people 
MiTiinsl  the  carnage,  pillage,  and  cahimil  v  which  other- 
wise would  have  been  sun-  to  conic.  A  spi-edv  realization 
Of  his  rcs(,lntion  was  necessary;  a  lew  hours  later  it 
Blight  have  been  too  late.  But  he  was  in  the  hands  of 
liis  disciples,  from  which  then-  was  no  ex-ape.  Therefore 
he  forcibly  suggested  to  Judas  Iscariot  to  go  and  com- 
plete his  treachery  as  fist  as  possible.  Let  us  follow  the 
matter  up  from  the  beginning. 

Murk,   Matthew,  and  John  agree  that  Jesus   and    his 
disciples  enjoyed  a  sumptuous  meal  at  the  house  of  Simon 
the  Leper.     .John  adds  (xii.  2),  that  Lazarus  was  one  of  the 
guests,  and   Martha  waited  upon  them.      While  at  table, 
so    Mark   informs  us,  "there  came  a  woman    having  an 
alabaster  box  of  ointment  of  spikenard,  very  precious - 
and  she  brake  the  box  and  poured  it  on  his  head/'     So 
also   Matthew  says,  and  omits  only  the  breaking  of  the 
box.     John   changes    the   unknown   woman    into   Mary 
omits  the  breaking  of  the   box,  has   the   feet  of  Jesus 
instead    of   his    head  anointed,  and  adds  the  wipino-  of 
feet  with  her  hair,  which  he  has  taken  from  Luke 
8).     Mark  then  observes:  "And  there  were  some 
that  had  indignation  within  themselves,   and  said     Why 
was  this   waste  of  ointment  made?"     Matthew  confirms 
tnrs,  and  adds  that  the  "some"  of  Mark  were  "his  (Jesus') 
disciples."    Strange,  however.  John  denies  that  those  who 
t  indignation  were  "some  disciples/'  but  maintains  it 
was  Judas  Iscariot  only.     The  three  accounts  agree   that 
Jesus  took  the  part  of   the  anointing  woman,   and  said 
she  had  anointed   his  body  for  the    burial.       Why  was 
tins  costly  box  broken  ?      Why  was  the  precious  ointment 
worth   over  three    hundred   pence,  poured   on  his  head? 
VV  hy  the  indignation  ?     Why  does  this  incidence  prompt 
Judas  to  betray  his  master,  in  which  ail  accounts  a-ree? 
\\  iiv  did  John  change  the  anecdote?     The  breaking  of 
the  box  shows  that  a  holy  ceremony,  and  not  a  profane 
ct,  was  performed.     "The  vessel  u,ed  to  holy  purposes 
nm.-t   not   be   used   again   to   profane   purposes/'   was  an 
dished  usage  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  ;  therefore 
m   numerous  instances,  such  vessels  were  broken      The 
i|»"'"t"itf    upon     the   head    was    intended  to  pour   upon 
;>IH  the  s,gn  and  symbol  of  royalty.     Meahah,  the  root 
«    Meshiah,  or  Messiah,  as  the  Galileans  pronounced  it 


42  JUDAS   ISCARIOT   AND   THE   SITUATION. 

signifies,  to  anoint,  and  the  Messiah  is  the  anointed 
one,  the  king.  None  of  the  kings  of  Israel  was  styled 
the  Messiah,  unless  he  was  anointed.  According  to  the 
opinion  of  some,  not  only  every  high-priest  but  also  every 
king  of  the  house  of  David  h.-.d  to  be  anointed.* 

The  whole  scene,  as  Mark  and  Matthew  give  it,  bears 
to  striking  a  resemblance  to  the  one  described  in  the 
second  book  of  Kings  (chap,  ix),  Jehu  being  anointed 
king  of  Israel,  that  the  intention  of  the  story  becomes 
evident  at  once.  In  the  case  of  Jehu,  it  is  a  lad,  a  pro- 
phetical disciple  of  Elisha,  sent  by  that  prophet  to  Ramoth 
Gilead,  where  he  finds  Jehu  sitting  among  the  other  cap- 
tains or  princes  of  the  host,  exactly  as  Jesus  is  represented 
to  have  sat  among  his  disciples.  Having  led  Jfthu  alone 
in  a  room,  the  lad  poiirs  the  oil  (or  the  ointment  of  spike- 
nard) upon  his  head,  and  says  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the 
God  of  Israel,  I  have  anointed  thee  king  over  God's 
people,  over  Israel.'7  The  lad  disappears,  and  Jehu  on 
request  communicates  to  the  other  princes  what  the  lad 
had  done  and  said,  upon  which  u  they  took  every  man 
his  garment,  and  put  it  under  him  on  the  top  of  the  stairs, 
and  they  blew  the  cornet,  saying,  "Jehu  is  king."  This  is 
the  beginning  of  a  revolution  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
The  house  of  A  hub  is  exterminated,  and  the  Jehu  dynasty 
founded.  It  was  the  party  of  action  among  the  admirers 
of  Jesus  that  had  him  anointed  by  a.  woman  (women  take 
the  part  of  those  lads  of  the  prophets  in  the  entire  Gospel 
story),  in  the  expectation  that  his  disciples  w7ould  do  the 
same  as  the  princes  did  to  Jehu — proclaim  him  king  of 
Israel,  and  thus  start  the  revolution  at  once.  But  there 
were  some  among  the  disciples,  Mark  informs  us,  that 
had  indignation  within  themselves,  and  said,  "Why  was 
this  waste  of  the  ointment  made?"  Those  some,  according 
to  Matthew  all  of  the  disciples,  which  is  certainly  doubt- 
ful, like  Jesus  himself,  were  not  willing  to  hurl  the 
people  into  a  rebellion,  in  which  success  was  impossible, 
carnage  and  pillage  certain.  Therefore  they  murmured 
against  the  woman,  apparently  because  the  money  thus 
squandered  might  have  been  given  to  the  poor ;  in  reality, 
however,  they  remonstrated  against  the  plot.  Jesus  ob- 
serving the  dissension,  quiets  it  at  once,  defending  the 
woman  thus :  "  She  had  done  what  she  could,"  (viz., 

"•'Talmud  Babli  Cherithoth,  5  b. 


THI-:   LAST  sriM'KK.  43 

in  the  mission  she  had  to  fulfill);  "she  is  come  aford.and 
to  anoint  my  body  to  the  burying,"  not  to  be  king,  but  to 
be  buried,  repudiating  at  once  the  idea  of  siding  with  the 
partv  of  action,  and  giving  them  fully  to  understand  that 
they  forced  him  to  sacrifice  himself  in  order  to  save  the 
lives  ot  many.* 

Thus,  and  thus  only,  the  conduct  of  Judas  Iscariot  be- 
comes intelligible.  Right  after  this  happened,  Mark  tells 
u>,  "  And  Judas  Iscariot,  one  of  the  twelve,  went  unto  the 
chief  priests,  to  betray  him  unto  them."  So  also  Matthew 
and  John  have  it.  Judas,  like  Jesus 'and  Caiaphas,  saw 
the  approach  of  the  calamitous  catastrophe,  and  must 
have  known  the  resolution  of  Jesus,  rather  to  die  than  to 
permit  his  disciples  and  his  people  to  rush  madly  into  the 
abyss  of  certain  death  :  therefore  he  went  to  the  chief 
priests  to  betray  his  secret  abode,  under  the  impression, 
however,  that  Jesus  would  not  be  put  to  death  (Matthew, 
xxvii.  3).  John  alone  changes  this  record  of  his  pre- 
decessors, and  maintains  it  was  Judas  only  who  was  of- 
fended by  the  anointing  scene,  because  he  was  a  thief,  and 
tries  to  explain  his  treachery  by  mercenary  motives.  But 
he  does  not  succeed.  The  thirty  silver-piecest  are  too  small 
an  amount,  especially  for  one  who  had  the  treasury  of  the 
whole  company  of  Jesus,  to  tempt  him  to  so  base  an  act. 
Besides,  he  went  to  the  chief  priests  before  he  knew  they 
would  give  him  anything,  and  returned  the  money  after 
Jesus  had  been  condemned  to  die.  This  does  not  look 
like  avarice.  It  is  not  in  the  plot  of  John's  gospel  to  let 
Jesus  die  for  his  own  ;  he  must  die  because  it  was  so  fore- 
ordained in  the  plan  of  Providence.  Therefore  he  admits 
not  the  real  object  of  the  anointing  scene;  says  the  woman 
was  Mary,  who  did  it  from  gratitude  and  personal  attach- 
ment, and  she  did  not  anoint  his  head  but  his  feet,  which 
i-  no  sign  of  royal  anointment.  Therefore  he  could  do  no 
better  than  ascribe  to  Judas  avarice  as  the  motive  of  his 
treachery.  But  the  testimony  of  Mark  and  Matthew  is 
better  than  John's,  in  historical  points.  Besides,  Luke, 
who  changes  the  whole  story  of  the  last  supper,  and  on 
the  same  ground  which  led  John  to  change  the  story  of 
the  meal  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  omits  this  alto- 

me  nine  in  Murk  in  evidently  a  later  addition,  as  the  word 
Evangelion  used  there  prov< 

TThe  thirty  silver-pieces  are  not  a  t'act  but  an  imitation  of 
Zachariah,  xi.  12,  13,  us  is  evident  from  Matthew,  xxvii.  5. 


44  THE    EUCHAKIST. 

gcther  ;  still  does  not  ascribe  avarice  to  Judas,  but  says 
in  general  terms  (which  John  copied),  "  Then  entered 
Satan  into  Judas,"  etc.,  "and  he  went  his  way  and  com- 
muned with  the  chief  priests  and  captains,  how  he  might 
betray  him  unto  them." 

The  treacherous  intentions  and  covenanting  with  the 
chief  priests,  being  known  to  Jesus,  it  matters  not  by  what 
means,  he  suggested  to  Judas,  at  the  last  supper,  to  go  and 
accomplish  his  purpose  at  once.  Luke  gives  as  a  partic- 
ular reason  for  this  urgency,  the  striie  of  the  disciples, 
which  of  them  should  be  accounted  the  greatest.  Al- 
though Luke  (ix.  46)  gives  to  this  strife  a  purely  spir- 
itual tenor,  still  the  first  source  from  which  he  took  it,  as 
introduced  at  the  last  supper — viz.,  Mark  (x.  28)  and 
Matthew  (xix.  27) — speak  distinctly  of  worldly  power  and 
wealth,  besides  the  promise  of  inheriting  everlasting  life. 
We  quote  the  passage  from  Matthew  : 

"Then  answered  Peter  and  said  unto  him,  Behold,  we  have  for- 
saken all,  and  followed  thee ;  what  shall  we  have  therefor  ?  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  which  have 
followed  me,  in  the  regeneration  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit 
in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  And  every  one  that  hath  for 
saken  houses  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife, 
or  children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive  a  hun- 
dredfold and  shall  inherit  everlasting  life.  But  many  that  are 
first  shall  be  last,  and  the  last  shall  be  first." 

This  explains  the  situation  fully.  Many  disciples  of 
Jesus  had  in  view  worldly  power  and  wealth,  as  well  as 
eternal  life.  They  wanted  the  revolution,  and  had  anx- 
iously anticipated  the  outbreak  thereof  on  the  first  clay 
of  the  feast.  They  had  arranged  the  anointing  scene  at 
the  hou^e  of  Simon  the  leper.  Jesus  was  in  their  hands, 
and  obliged  either  to  stand  at  the  head  of  a  destructive 
rebellion,  with  no  prospect  of  any  success,  or  to  sacrifice 
himself  at  once.  He  preferred  the  latter,  and  therefore 
urged  upon  Judas  Iscariot  the  speedy  execution  of  his 
designs. 

V.      THE   EUCHARIST. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  main  point  of  the  last 
supper,  the  supposed  institution  of  the  euclmrist,  which 
gave  so  much  trouble  to  theologians,  expounders,  and 
harmonizers;  and  still  more  and  worse  affliction  to  millions 
of  innocent  persons,  who  refused  to  believe  the  doctrines 
connected  with  this  outward  observance,  or  the  miraculous 


THH    LAST     sri'I'KK.  45 

change  and  supernatural  effect  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
because  passing  through  the  hands  <>f  ;i  priest  ;  then  all 
those  who  were  tortured  and  killed,  because  they  had 
given  offense  to  a  ln»t,  had  profaned  it,  cut  it,  stabbed  it, 
and  out  came  the  blood,  and  such  similar  inventions  of 
benighted  ignorance. 

\Ve  maintain,  that  never  was  a  man's  mission  and 
intention  more  misconstrued  than  those  of  .Jesus,  by  the 
prie>ts,  who  instituted  the  sacrament  of  the  eneharist,  or 
the  communion,  as  something  indispensably  necessary  to 
a  man's  salvation.  The  same  Jesus,  it  is  supposed,  who 
objected  to  all  the  sanctimonious  observances  of  the 
Pharisees  and  priests,  and  looked  upon  outward  piety, 
the  religion  of  performances,  as  conductive  to  no  good 
and  productive  of  hypocrisy;  who  opposed  the  entire 
Levitical  laws  and  institutions;  the  same  Jesus  is  sup- 
posed to  have  instituted  a  new  outward  observance,  and 
made  it  a  condition,  sine  qua  non,  to  obtain  salvation. 
We  furthermore  believe  to  have  a  good  right  for  main- 
taining, that  no  words  of  Jesus  were  worse  misrepresented 
and  misconstrued  than  those  spoken  at  his  last  supper, 
Let  us  investigate. 

Mark  narrates:  "And  as  they  (the  disciples)  did  eat, 
Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to 
them,  and  said,  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.  And  he 
took  the  cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave  it 
to  them  :  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And  he  said  unto 
them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament  (the  new 
covenant)  which  is  shed  for  many/'  etc.  Matthew  has 
the  same  description  of  the  scene,  the  same  brief  words 
at  the  breaking  of  the  bread  ;  but  at  the  wine  he  adds 
the  words  "for  the  remission  of  sins,"  thus  bringing  in 
an  entirely  new  element,  of  which  Mark  has  no  knowl- 
edge. With  Luke,  however,  the  whole  scene  is  changed. 
What  Mark  and  Matthew  have  Jesus  say  after  the  wine 
alter  meal  had  been  handed  round,  "I  say  unto  you,  I  will 
not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  any  more,"  etc.,  Luke 
has  him  say  at  the  first  cup.  At  the  breaking  of  the  bread 
Luke  reports  that  Jesus  said,  "This  is  my  body  which  is 
given  for  you:  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  In  this 
case,  one  party,  evidently,  reports  not  the  words  of  Jesus  ; 
for  the  commandment  added  by  Luke,  "This  do  in 
remembrance  of  me,"  according  to  all  Christian  theolo- 
gians, is  the  main  point  to  institute  the  sacrament.  If 


46  THE   EUCHARIST. 

Jesus  did  enjoin  this  commandment  on  his  disciples,  how 
could  Mark  and  Matt  hew -neglect  to  state  it?  The  words 
spoken  on  so  solemn  an  occasion  must  certainly  have 
made  a  deep  and  lasting  impression  on  the  disciples.  How 
could  it  be,  that  the  two  elder  evangelists  should  not 
have  known  them;  or,  knowing  them,  should  have  neg- 
lected to  enjoin  that  new  commandment,  especially  if  it 
has  the  importance  attached  to  it  by  the  Church  ? 

Besides,  the  additional  words  of  Luke  were  void  of 
sense  and  signification  to  the  disciples,  then  and  there. 
What  should  they  do  in  remembrance  of  Jesus  ?  He  did 
not  do  or  say  anything  on  that  occasion  new  or  unusual 
among  Jews.  To  pronounce  the  benediction,  break  the 
bread,  and  credence  pieces  thereof  to  the  persons  at  table, 
was,  and  is  now,  a  common  usage  of  the  Hebrews.  There 
was  nothing  to  be  done  specially  in  remembrance  of  Jesus. 
It  could  not  possibly  refer  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation,  as  Jesus  was  still  alive  among  them,  and  so  the 
bread  and  wine  could  not  possibly  have  been  changed  to 
his  flesh  and  blood.  What  idea  did  Luke  mean  to  con- 
vey with  those  additional  words  ? 

It  is  important  to  know  that  those  additional  words 
are  taken  literally  from  Paul  (1  Corinthians,  xi.  20).  He 
addressed  that  epistle  to  Gentile-Christians,  or  at  least  to 
a  body  composed  of  Gentiles  and  Jews,  the  former  ele- 
ment preponderating,  among  whom  the  Essenean  common 
meal,  as  adopted  by  the  apostles,  had  been  introduced  to 
give  them  a  proper  substitute  for  the  sacrificial  meals  of 
riotous  heathens,  whose  debauchery  and  excesses  at  those 
public  feasts  are  notorious.  Jesus  was  the  last  sacrifice 
superseding  all  others — was  the  fundamental  idea  in  this 
respect.  Therefore  the  Christians  could  meet  at  a  sacri- 
ficial meal  without  having  slaughtered  a  victim.  They 
met  at  stated  times,  each  bringing  his  victuals  along,  and 
eating  them  as  he  or  she  pleased  (without  giving  any- 
thing to  their  neighbors  :  verse  21).  These  meals  w<  re 
intended  to  be  Jewish  in  form,  viz.,  to  pronounce  the 
benediction  over  the  bread  before  the  meal,  and  over  the 
wine  after  the  meal,  in  order  to  accustom  those  late 
heathens  to  thank  God  for  meat  and  drink,  and  thus  to 
protect  them  against  an  excessive  and  riotous  use  of  either. 
But  Paul  did  nothing  on  his  own  account ;  he  had  learned 
everything  of  Jesus,  whom  he  had  never  seen.  He  ap- 


THK    LAST    Sfl'PER.  47 

penred  to  Paul  as  a  spirit,  ghost,  phantom,  or  so,  and 
taught  him  the  (Jospel.  Therefore  Paul  know  (verse 
'J'»)  that  Jesus,  at  his  last  supper,  had  commanded,  as 
he  hell » re  meal  spoke  the  benediction,  broke  the  breul 
and  eivdeneed  pieces  thereof  to  each  of  the  party,  so  nil 
his  followers  should  do,  at  least  at  the  public:  leasts  :  "Do 
this  iu  remembrance  of  me/'  Furthermore,  as  Jesus 
alter  his  last  supjvr  pronounced  the  benediction  over  the 
wine,  and  then  eredenced  it  to  each  of  the  party,  "  So  ye 
shall  do  ^as  often  as  ye  drink)  in  remembrance  of  me." 
He  evidently  intended  to  see  this  beautiful  Jewish  custom 
introduced  among  the  Gentiles.  Had  he  recommended 
it  as  a  Jewish  custom,  the  Gentiles  would  have  thought 
slightly  ot  it.  Therefore,  he  said  Jesus  did  the  same 
thing  at  his  last  supper,  and  commands  you  to  do  it  in 
remembrance  of  him.  This  gave  weight  and  importance 
to  the  ceremony.  Now  Paul  knew  very  well  what  he 
said,  and  to  what  particular  purpose  he  did  say  so  ;  but 
Luke  copied  his  words  in  the  wrong  place,  where  they 
have  neither  sense  nor  signification.  Jesus  could  not  have 
commanded  born  Jews  to  do  in  remembrance  of  him 
what  they  and  every  other  religious  Jew  did  and  do  to 
this  day. 

The  commentators  of  Luke  felt  that  his  additional 
words  are  without  intelligible  signification.  Therefore 
they  resorted  to  a  passage  in  the  Talmud,*  maintaining, 
as  they  say,  that  the  Jews,  in  eating  the  Passover,  did  it 
to  represent  the  sufferings  of  the  Messiah.  Therefore 
Jesus  said,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  being  the 
Messiah.  If  so,  Jesus  ought  to  have  given  to  his  disciples 
pieces  of  the  Passover  lamb,  which  is  supposed  to  rep- 
resent the  suffering  of  the  Messiah,  especially  as  it  is 
stated  plainly  in  Scriptures  what  the  unleavened  bread 
represents — viz.,  the  memorial  of  Israel's  departure  from 
Egypt  (Exodus,  xiii.  8;  Deut,  xvi.  3).  Aside  of  this, 
however,  the  passage  of  the  Talmud  says  a  different  thing 
entirely.  Nothing  is  said  there  of  the  Passover  lamb  ; 
the  subject  under  discussion  is  the  great  hymn,  Halld 
Haggadol,  consisting:  of  Psalm  136,  or  of  Psalms  120  to 
1  :\(y,  or  of  Ps.  135  to  136,  or  of  111  to  1 18.  These  are  the 
three  opinions  in  the  Talmud.  Next  the  various  opinions 

*  Pesachim,  118  a.,  and  not  119,  as  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  copies  from 
Schaetgen. 


48  THE   EUCHARIST. 

about  the  contents  of  the  great  hymn  are  stated,  one  of 
which,  dating  evidently  from  the  third  or  fourth  century, 
when  the  Jews  had  suffered  long  in  exile  —  one  of  which 
is,  that  the  great  hymn  contains  references  to  the  exode, 
the  dividing  of  the  Red  Sea,  the  promulgation  of  the 
Law,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  sufferings  of 
the  Messiah  ;  but  this  last  point  is  contradicted  right 
there  by  quoting  from  two  older  authorities;  and  a  third 
one  maintaining,  the  fifth  point  in  the  great  hymn  is  the 
reference  to  the  rescue  of  the  souls  of  the  pious  ones  from 
Gehinom,  in  the  passage,  "  I  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  release 
my  soul.  .  .  For  thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from 
death.  .  .  I  will  walk  before  the  Lord  in  the  lands  of 
life"  (Psalm  cxvi).  Therefore  it  was  not  a  tradition  or 
belief  to  which  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  parties  referred  : 
it  is  merely  a  piece  of  Babylonian  exegese.  But  aside  of 
this,  there  is  no  mention  and  no  reference  in  the  passage 
to  the  Passover  lamb  or  to  eating  anything  at  any  time, 
and  the  commentators  of  Luke  had  resort  to  a  mistake. 
Aside  of  all  this,  however,  the  mistake  of  Schaetgen 
and  Adam  Clark  is  also  in  this  essential  point,  that  they 


translate  the  terms  H^j  ^^  l^DH  in  that  passage  of 
the  Talmud,  "  the  suffering  of  the  Messiah,"  while  actually 
they  signify  the  sufferings  of  the  Hebrew  people  before 
the  coming  of  'the  Messiah,  viz.,  in  the  generation  which 
will  see  his  coming.  There  is  no  idea  of  the  Messiah's 
suffering  connected  with  these  terms.  We  prove  this  by 
the  three  oldest  passages  on  record,  in  which  these  terms 
occur;  viz.,  in  the  Mishnah  (ISotah,  ix.  15)  ;  Pesikta,  of 
Rab  Kahana  (Edit.  Lyck,  p.  51)  ;  and  Talmud  Babli 
(Sanhedrin,  97  a).  A  cursory  inspection  of  the  last 
chapters  of  Sotah  will  show  that  they  were  written  in  the 
third  century.  This  is  especially  visible  in  the  Messianic 
passages  under  consideration,  which  in  the  other  books 
are  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Johanan  and  Rabbi  Bo,  authorities 
of  the  third  century.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  Jews  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  had 
produced  in  them  the  idea  that  these  sufferings  would  in- 
crease and  demoralization  reach  all  classes  of  society,  un- 
til both  should  be  intolerable,  when  the  war  of  Gog- 
Magog  should  follow,  and  at  last  the  Messiah  should 
make  his  appearance  and  make  an  end  to  both.  But  there 
is  no  hint  in  either  of  these  passages  to  the  sufferings  of 


mi    LAST  SUPPER.  49 

the  Messiah  himself.  The  rabbis,  it  appears,  thought  it 
was  imt  very  difficult  to  escape  those  sufferings,  Ibroue  of 
them,  JJar  Kapra,  maintained,  "  Whoever  eats  three 
meals  on  Sabbath  will  be  saved  from  three  evils,  viz., 
from  (ii'lmiom,  the  war  of  Gog- Magog,  an <1  the  sufferings 
in  the  time  of  the  Messiah"  (Sabbath,  118  a).  Bar 
Kapra  did  not  think  very  highly  of  the  prophesied  war 
and  sufferings,  as  many  others  did  who  maintained;  "The 
world  will  go  on  in  its  usual  way."  * 

In  one  of  the  latest  compilations  of  rabbinical  tradi- 
tions, called  Midrash  Samuel  (chap.  19),  from  which  it 
was  carried  over  to  another  and  still  later  compilation, 
Yalkut  Shimoni  (Isaiah,  sec.  338),  a  Babylonian  rabbi, 
Hunna,  of  the  fifth  century,  speaks  of  the  sufferings  of 
the  Messiah,  in  explanation  of  Isaiah,  liii.  5,  which,  there 
is  no  doubt  in  our  mind,  was  taken  from  the  Gospels. 
The  idea  that  a  suffering  Messiah  had  been  imagined  by 
the  ancient  Hebrews  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  or  in  the  next 
centuries  after  his  death,  must  be  given  up  as  being  en- 
tirely without  foundation  in  the  literature  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews. 

It  appears  superfluous,  however,  to  argue  this  point 
against  Luke  and  Paul,  as  the  older  sources,  Mark  and 
Matthew,  omit  to  state  that  Jesus  commanded  the  obser- 
vance of  the  eucharist ;  and  John  not  only  omits  it,  but 
places  in  its  stead  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet,  of 
which  the  Synoptics  had  no  knowledge,  and  it  could  not 
possibly  be  forced  into  any  part  of  their  story  of  the  last 
supper.  We  have  here  three  witnesses  against  Paul. 
Therefore,  we  must  reject  Luke's  additional  words  as 
being  Paul's,  and  not  the  words  of  Jesus.  The  sacrament 
of  the  eucharist  has  no  foundation  in  the  Gospels  ;  and  if 
any  words  spoken  at  the  last  supper  can  be  considered 
historical,  they  certainly  are  those  recorded  by  Mark, 
"  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body/'  the  signification  of  which 
we  discuss  below, 

Regarding  the  wine  at  the  last  supper,  Mark  says : 

"  And  he  took  the  cup.  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave 
it  to  them  :  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many." 

*  See  Babli  Sabbath,  30  b., and  parallel  passages  ;  theDerashoth 
of  Rabbon  Gamaliel,  and  the  objections  of  a  certain  disciple  — 
"There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun.'; 


50  THE   EUCHARIST. 

Matthew  changes  the  passage  considerably.  He  adds 
a  command  of  Jesus,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  which  Jesus 
hardly  did  say,  as  the  custom  was  and  is  now  among  Jews 
that  all  nip  of  the  wine,  over  which  the  blessing  was  pro- 
nounced. Then  Matthew  adds  the  significant  words, 
"For  the  remission  of  sins,"  while  Mark  shows  no  knowl- 
edge that  Jesus  thought  his  blood  was  shed  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  Luke  also  follows  Mark,  and  records  as 
the  words  of  Jesus,  "This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in 
my  blood,  which  is  shed  for  you."  Although  these 
words  make  no  sense  whatever,  as  the  cup  can  not  possi- 
bly be  made  a  new  or  old  testament,  nevertheless  it  is 
plain  that  Luke  intended  to  reproduce  the  word  of  Mark, 
and  to  omit  the  addition  of  Matthew,  which  expresses 
the  dogma  of  vicarious  atonement  adopted  after  the  death 
of  Jesus. 

What  does  the  "new  testament"  mean  ?  Testament 
signifies  a  last  will,  to  which  the  adjective  new  stands  in 
no  logical  connection.  It  is  a  mistake  in  the  Latin  trans- 
lation, adopted  in  the  English ;  for  the  Greek  terms  must 
be  rendered  "  the  new  covenant."  Jesus  gave  them  the 
wine  to  drink  upon  the  new  covenant  to  be  made  by 
his  blood,  shed  for  many  as  Mark  says,  for  the  disciples 
as  Luke  expounds.  The  nature  of  this  new  covenant  is 
described  more  at  length  by  John.  Although  this  last 
evangelist  denies  the  whole  incident — tlie  eating  of  the 
Paschal  supper,  and  every  thing  connected  with  it — still 
his  last  speech  of  Jesus  is  a  lengthy  illustration  of  the 
words  of  the  Synoptics,  said  to  have  been  spoken  at  the 
last  supper,  to  which  John  adds  his  share,  to  bring  out 
the  Logos,  the  Sen  of  God,  in  his  proper  light  on  this 
occasion.  John,  from  xiii.  31,  to  xvii.  26,  is  a  comment- 
ary from  his  standpoint  to  the  narrative  of  the  Synoptics, 
contradicting  almost  all  the  alleged  facts,  and  present- 
ing the  spirit  thereof. 

We  ask  John,  What  is  the  new  covenant  which  Jesus 
made  with  his  disciples?  and  he  replies  (xv.  9)  : 

"  As  the  Father  hath  loved  me,  so  have  I  loved  you:  continue 
ye  in  my  love.  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in 
my  love;  even  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  commandments,  and 
abide  in  his  love.  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that 
my  joy  might  remain  in  you.  and  that  your  joy  might  be  full. 
This  is  my  commandment,  that  ye  love  one  another,  as  I  have 
loved  you.  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay 
down  his  life  for  his  friends.  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  what- 


THE   LAST   SUPPER.  51 

soever  I  command  you.  Henceforth  I  call  you  not  servants;  for 
tin1  servant  knoWOth  not  what  his  lord  docth  ;  hut  I  have  culled 
you  friends;  for  all  things  that  I  have  heard  of  my  Father 
1  have  made  known  unto  y<»u.  Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  hut  I 
have  chosen  yon,  and  ordained  you,  that  ye  should  go  and  hring 
forth  fruit,  and  that  your  fruit  should  remain;  that  whatsoever 
ye  shall  ask  of  the  "Father  in  my  name,  he  may  jrive  it  you. 
These-  things  I  command  you,  that  ye  love  one  another." 

Like  a  man  parting  forever  from  his  friends ;  like  a 
teacher  bidding  the  last  farewell  to  his  disciples;  like  a 
martyr  who  lays  down  his  life  for  his  beloved  friends, 
Jesus  said,  so  John  imagines,  "  My  blood  shed  for  you 
shall  unite  you  forever  in  love."  This  is  the  new  covenant 
which  he  established  among  his  disciples.  No  thinking 
man  can  find  more  in  the  words  of  the  Gospels.  On  that 
eve  of  the  supper,  Jesus  announced  to  the  apostles,  not 
only  his  firm  resolution  to  die  for  his  disciples  and  friends, 
and  to  prevent  the  calamity  which  an  insurrection  in 
his  favor  was  sure  to  bring  on  his  people,  but  also  that 
the  end  was  nigh,  and  that  the  traitor  would  do  his  work 
quickly.  He  speaks  like  one  who  has  taken  poison,  sees 
the  approach  of  certain  death,  and  bids  his  friends  fare- 
well. He  breaks  the  bread,  and  the  broken  cake  natur- 
ally reminds  him  of  his  body  which  would  thus  be 
broken  in  a  short  time,  and  says,  "Take,  eat,  this  is 
my  body,"  or  rather,  it  is  like  what  my  body  will  be  in 
a  short  time.  The  wine  naturally  reminds  him  of  his 
blood  to  be  shed  for  his  friends,  and  he  proposes  to  them 
the  new  covenant  of  perpetual  memory  and  love.  All  this 
is  as  natural  as  it  possibly  could  have  been  said,  had  not 
some  of  the  evangelists  wrapped  their  peculiar  doctrines 
around  the  incident.  With  Matthew  plain  martyrdom 
was  insufficient,  and  he  had  to  bring  in  remission  of  sins 
by  the  blood  of  Jesus.  With  Luke,  again,  the  parting 
supper,  as  such,  was  not  sublime  enough  :  he  must  bring 
in  Paul's  statement,  that  Jesus  commanded  them  to  do 
this,  God  knows  what,  in  remembrance  of  him.  With 
John  it  was  noc  respectable  enough  that  the  Logos, 
the  Son  of  God,  should  speak  the  words  of  a  mortal 
being  going  forth  to  meet  his  fate,  and  so  he  changes 
the  whole  phase  of  the  affair,  and  replaces  it  by  elaborate 
speeches,  of  which  the  Synoptics  had  no  idea.  Each  had 
his  dogma  to  represent,  and  his  peculiar  traditions  to 
bring  in  and  to  justify.  The  plain  fact  is,  that  Jesus 
sacrificed  himself  to  save  his  friends,  which,  in  after-times, 


52  THE   PREPARATION. 

was  expounded  into  vicarious  atonement,  and  imposed 
upon  the  Gospel  story.  Eating  the  last  meal  with  his 
friends  and  disciples,  he  bade  them  farewell,  and  express- 
ed the  wish  that  his  blood  should  unite  them  in  love, 
which  was  construed  into  the  mysteries  of  the  euchar- 
ist.  He  spoke  of  his  friends  and  disciples,  and  to  them 
only,  without  the  remotest  reference  to  others,  or  to  un- 
born generations  ;  but  the  expounders  changed  it  into  a 
fabric  of  salvation  for  all  the  world,  and,  on  their  own 
responsibility,  made  it  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  eter- 
nal life  and  happiness.  Simple  facts  were  unskillful ly 
wrought  up  into  a  divine  drama,  after  the  pattern  of  the 
Pagan  masteries,  in  defiance  of  the  plain  resultants  of  rea- 
son and  the  simple  teachings  of  the  Bible.  Unravel 
the  matter,  and  nothing  is  left  except  the  resolution  of  a 
man — rather  to  die  than  let  his  friends  rush  madly  into 
the  abyss  of  certain  destruction.  The  resolution  was  as 
magnanimous  as  the  dogmas  built  upon  it  are  childish, 
and  in  perpetual  warfare  with  reason's  plainest  paragraphs. 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE    CAPTURE    OF    JESUS. 

I.      THE     PREPARATION. 

After  the  supper,  Jesus  and  his  disciples  left  the  city 
to  cross  the  Cedron.  On  the  way,  Mark  and  Matthew 
report,  a  conversation  with  the  apostles  took  place,  and 
especially  with  Peter,  which  Luke  gives  in  another  form 
and  place,  and  John  omits  altogether.  The  main  point 
of  the  conversation  is,  that  Jesus  prophesied  Peter  would 
deny  him  that  very  night,  before  the  cock  crow  thrice, 
which  Peter  gainsaid  emphatically.  The  four  evangelists 
narrate,  that  Peter  did  deny  his  Master  when  danger 
threatened,  and  that  Jesus  prophesied  it.  We  discuss  the 
merits  thereof  below. 

Luke  was  obliged  to  change  his  predecessors'  report, 
because  it  is  maintained  therein,  that  Jesus  said,  "But 
after  that  I  am  risen,  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee." 
Luke  denies  this  (xxiv.  49),  and  maintains,  neither  Jesus 
nor  the  apostles  returned  to  Galilee  ;  he  ascended  to 


THE   CAPTURE   OF   JESUS.  53 

heaven  from  l>ethany,  near  Jerus -ilcin,  and  commanded 
them  to  stay  in  the  capital  till  they  should  have  received 
liie  IIolv  (ihost.  .J->lm  also  expounds  from  his  standpoint 
the  contents  of  this  conversation  in  his  last  speech  of  Jesus, 
without  admitting  the  fact,  that  such  u  conversation  took 
place.  Thus,  according  to  Luke  and  John,  this  incident, 
as  reported  l>y  Mark  and  Matthew,  is  no  fact. 

This  mutual  contradiction  of  the  evangelists  in  their 
reports,  increases  as  the  story  progresses.  Next  in  the 
narrative,  the  passion  scene  comes,  which  the  three  Synop- 
tics narrate,  each  in  his  own  way.  Matthew  copied  it  of 
Mark,  and  Luke  tells  again  an  entirely  different  story. 
He  brings  an  angel  from  heaven  to  embellish  the  scene, 
and  adds  that  the  sweat  of  Jesus  was  like  drops  of  blood 
falling  upon  the  ground.  Who  saw  it?  Who  reported 
it?  Jesus  was  alone,  and  the  three  disciples  next  to  him 
slept,  according  to  all  accounts.  If  an  angel  appeared  to 
Jesus  in  that  trying  moment,  how  is  it  that  Mark  and 
Matthew  did  not  know  the  important  item  ?  There  is 
but  one  answer  to  these  queries:  they  intended  to  report 
one  fact,  and  each  embellished  it  according  to  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  church  for  which  he  wrote.  They  wished  to 
report,  when  the  decisive  moment  approached,  Jesus  ex- 
claimed, "My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  unto  death," 
and  he  prayed,  "Father,  all  things  are  possible  unto  thee  ; 
take  away  this  cup  from  me,  nevertheless  not  what  I  will, 
but  what  thou  wilt."  It  is  so  natural  and  human  that 
the  martyr,  however  firm  his  determination,  the  decisive 
moment  approaching,  feels  the  agony  of  that  inevitable 
struggle  between  the  love  of  life  and  the  terror  of  death, 
that  this  report  of  the  Synoptics  can  hardly  be  doubted.* 
Still,  John  denies  it.  It  was  too  human,  too  natural  for 
him,  that  the  Logos,  the  Son  of  God,  should  dread  the 
moment  of  death,  knowing  that  this  was  his  mission  and 
destiny  on  eaith.  Therefore  John  has  his  own  lasl  prayer 
of  Jesus  (xvii.  1).  Jesus  prays  to  God.  He  should  now 
glorify  him,  take  him  back  to  heaven,  his  work  on  earth 
being  done.  Then  he  prays  for  his  disciples,  and  closes, 
"And  I  have  declared  unto  them,  and  will  declare  it,  that 

*]f  we  are  to  take  Luke's  notice  of  the  two  swords  (xxii.  38) 
as  a  fact,  and  the  disciples  understood  Jesus  right,  then  he  al- 
ready repented  the  step  he  had  taken,  and  thou-ht  -»f  self-defense. 
It  is  quite  natural  that  the  mind  in  such  a  decisive  moment  wa- 
vers, before  it  arrives  at  the  last  and  final  resolution. 


54     THE  PLACE  OF  CAPTURE — THE  CAPTORS. 

the  love  wherewith  thou  hast  loved  me  may  be  in  them, 
and  I  in  them."  Not  only  the  place  of  this  last  prayer  is 
changed — John  has  it  at  the  last  supper,  and  the  Synoptics 
outside  of  the  city — but  the  contents  are  entirely  different. 
With  the  Synoptics,  the  man  and  martyr,  Jesus,  in  his 
agony  prays  in  a  moment  of  bitter  affliction  and  the  strug- 
gle of  the  soul  against  approaching  death.  With  John 
the  Logos,  the  Son  of  God,  prays  the  Father  to  make 
now  a  speedy  end  of  his  career,  and  to  glorify  him  at 
once.  If  John  had  so  little  confidence  in  the  statement 
of  his  predecessors,  it  must  not  be  expected  of  us,  in  the 
year  1874,  to  believe  them  implicitly. 

II.      THE    PLACE    OF    CAPTURE. 

The  place  where  Jesus  was  arrested,  was  not  known  to 
the  evangelists.  Mark  and  Matthew  state  it  was  Geth- 
semane.  This  place,  with  its  garden,  is  in  the  valley,  a 
few  steps  beyond  the  Cedron,  nt  the  loot  of  Olivet.  Turn 
over  to  Luke,  and  he  tells  you  it  was  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  hence  not  at  Gethsemane.  He  maintains  it  was 
the  same  place  which  Jesus  frequented  every  night 
(xxi.  37).  John  must  have  observed  this  difference  of 
statements,  and  attempting  to  follow  both  and  none,  he 
himself  not  knowing  the  place,  says  Jesus  with  his  dis- 
ciples went  over  the  brook  of  Cedron,  and  entered  a 
garden.  This  leaves  it  undecided  whether  that  garden 
was  in  the  valley  or  on  the  mountain,  as  he  might  have 
gone  a  mile  or  two  beyond  the  Cedron,  and  entered  any 
of  the  gardens  in  that  direction. 

III.      THE    CAPTORS. 

The  evangelists  differ  widely  on  the  question,  by 
whom  or  how  Jesus  was  arrested,  what  was  spoken,  or 
what  occurred  on  that  occasion.  Mark  says  (xiv.  43)  : 
"And  immediately,  while  he  yet  spake,  cometh  Judas,  one 
of  the  twelve,  and  with  him  a  great  multitude  with 
swords  and  staves,  from  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes 
and  the  elders."  The  words  "one  of  the  twelve,"  quali- 
fying Judas,  prove  that  this  account  was  taken  from  a 
source  different  from  the  above.  The  one  who  wrote  the 
above  items,  concerning  Judas,  would  not  have  needed 
this  explanatory  phrase,  as  he  must  have  expected  the 
reader  to  know  full  well  which  Judas  the  traitor  was. 
The  great  multitude,  with  swords  and  staves,  could  only 
have  been  a  promiscuous  crowd  of  civilians,  a  gang  of 


THE  CAPTURE  OF  JESUS.  55 

ruffians  picked  up  in  a  hurry,  and  sent  out  on  this 
errand  ;  because  soldiers,  guardsmen,  and  constables  or 
policemen  were  armed  with  swords,  spears,  bows  and 
arrow.-,  etc.,  and  not  merely  with  swords  or  staves.  This 

Gmiscnous  cn.Nvd  of  ruilians  was  sent  by  three  distinct 
ies — the  chief  priests,  the  scribes,  and  the  ciders.     A 
body  of  chief  priests  and  a  body   of  elders  are  known  in 
the  Jewish    institutions,  but   a  body  of  scribes  did  not 
exist.     This  renders  the  notice  suspicious,  as  having  been 
written  by  one  not  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  institu- 
tions  of  that   day.      Therefore,    while    Matthew   copied 
literally  the  above  account  from  Mark,  he  changes  the 
conclusion  into  "From  the  chief  priests  and  elders  of  the 
people,"    omitting    the    scribes    altogether.       Matthew 
having  thus  amended  the  account,  Luke  omits  altogether 
the  authorities  sending  the  multitude  and  the  arms  borne, 
and  states  (xxii.  47) :  " And  while  he  yet  spake,  behold  a 
multitude,    and    he   that   was   called   Judas,  one  of  the 
twelve,  went  before  them."     While  the  peculiar  phrase, 
"one  of  the  twelve,"  distinctly  shows  that  Luke  hud  the 
accounts  of  Mark  and  Matthew  before  him,  the  indefinite 
expression,   "behold   a   multitude,"    no    less    distinctly 
shows  that  he  did  not  wish  to  confirm  who  sent  them  or 
how  they  were  armed.     So  Luke  leaves  it  uncertain  who 
arrested  Jesus,  and  by  what  authority  he  was  arrested. 
John,  perceiving  this  confusion  of  accounts,  gives  his  own 
version  of  it.     He  states  (John,  xviii.  3),    Judas    then 
having    received  a    band  of  men  and  officers   from    the 
chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  cometh  thither  with  lanterns 
and   torches    and  weapons.     What  they   intended  to  do 
with  lanterns  and  torches  in  a  moonlight    night,  nobody 
has  yet  been  able  to  explain.  Fearing  the  people,  as  they 
did,  it  is  not  likely  that  they  went  forth  with  torches  and 
lanterns   to    arrest   Jesus.      Besides,    the    Jews  had  no 
lanterns.     There  is  no  word  for  it  in  the  Hebrew  or  the 
Palestine   dialects.     This  merely  shows  that  John's  ac- 
count is  not  taken  from  any   Jewish  source.     He  says 
Judas    received  men  and  officers  from  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees,  which  means  the  priestly  superiors,  omit- 
ting scribes  and  elders.     And  the  men  and  officers  re- 
ceived, lie  says  (so  the  original  reads),  were  a  squad  of 
soldiers,  and  also  some  officers,  constables,  or  guardsmen 
from  the  chief  priests.     The  verse  should  be  translated 


56  JUDAS   AND   THE   KISS. 

thus ;  "Judas,  then,  having  received  a  band  of  soldiers, 
and  afeo  officers  from  the  chief  priests/'  etc.  This  is  a 
flat  contradiction  of  Mark's  and  Matthew's  statement.  It 
was  not  a  promiscuous  crowd  of  civilians  which  arrested 
Jesus:  soldiers  and  officers  armed  with  "weapons"  and  riot 
with  "staves"  did  it.  Who  had  soldiers  under  his  com- 
mand in  Jerusalem  ?  None  but  the  Roman  authorities. 
The  people  were  disarmed.  The  invader  held  the  mili- 
tary power  and  the  right  over  life  and  death.  If  we 
take  for  granted  that  John  adds  the  officers  of  the  high- 
priest,  to  account  in  part  for  the  statement  of  the  Synop- 
tics— for  nobody  can  see  what  purpose  those  officers  served 
if  Judas  had  been  given  a  squad  of  soldiers — we  are  in- 
formed by  him  that  Judas  led  a  squad  of  Roman  soldiers 
to  the  spot  to  arrest  Jesus.  The  fact  that  Mark  took  this 
account  from  some  unknown  source,  that  Matthew 
amended  it,  and  Luke  doubted  it  in  the  main,  makes  it 
worthless.  We  must  then  maintain  either  John  has  the 
correct  account  of  the  affair — viz.,  that  a  squad  of  Roman 
soldiers,  led  by  Judas,  arrested  Jesus — or  we  must  admit 
that  neither  of  the  four  evangelists  knew  who  arrested 
him.  We  prefer  John's  statement  to  absolute  uncer- 
tainty, because  it  is  most  likely,  fits  best  into  the  entire 
situation,  and  John  might  have  drawn  it  from  Roman 
accounts. 

IV.       JUDAS   AND   THE   KISS. 

How  was  Jesus  arrested  ?  Mark  narrates :  "And  he 
that  betrayed  him  had  given  them  a  token,  saying, 
Whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,  that  same  is  he ;  take  him  and 
lead  him  away  safely.  And  as  soon  as  he  was  come,  he 
goes  straightway  to  him  and  saith,  Master,  Master;  and 
kissed  him.  And  they  laid  their  hands  on  him  and  took 
him,"  This  kiss  is  the  most  satanic  and  unnatural  that, 
could  possibly  be  invented.  The  traitor  kisses  his  vic- 
tim, and  the  victim  is  his  teacher,  friend,  and  master, 
against  whom  he  manifests  no  animosity,  grudge,  or  even 
disrespect  on  any  previous  occasion.  Read  this  in  any 
other  book  and  you  will  instantly  doubt  it,  as  being  too 
unnatural.  So  maliciously  and  hypocritically  wicked 
man  can  not  be.  Besides,  there  was  no  earthly  cause  for 
that  kiss.  Judas  might  just  as  well  have  pointed  out  his 
victim  to  the  soldiers  by  words  or  motions  as  by  a  kiss. 
Still,  here  is  the  statement  of  Mark,  that  the  kiss  was  the 


THE   CAPTURE   OF    JESUS.  57 

traitor's  token,  and  the  treacherous  kiss  was  given.  What 
riii'ht  have  we  to  gainsay  an  alleged  fact  by  pfljchologi- 
:-al  speculation?  P>nt  let  us  see  what  the  other  evange- 
lists report.  Matthew  copied  the  account  of  Mark  with 
one  change  and  one  addition.  Judas  said,  "Master,  Mas- 
ter," says  Mark  ;  lie  said,  "  Hail,  Master,"  says  Matthew, 
which  is  no  Hebrew  salutation,  "Peace  unto  thee,  is 
the  Hebrew  ;  hence,  these  words  are  Matthew's,  and  not 
Judas's.  Jesus  said  nothing  to  Judas  according  to  Mark, 
but  according  to  Matthew  he  said,  "Friend  [companion], 
wherefore  art  thou  come  ?"  So  Matthew  took  the  liberty 
of  amending  Mark's  account.  Luke  has  another  version 
of  the  affair.  Judas  "drew  near  unto  Jesus  to  kiss  him/' 
without  speaking  a  word.  But  Jesus  knowing  his  inten- 
tion said  to  him,  "Judas,  betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  man 
with  a  kiss?"  Luke  does  not  maintain,  that  Judas  kissed 
the  Master,  and  has  him  say  something  entirely  new. 
These  are  the  doubtful  points  in  the  account.  Did  Judas 
kiss  Jesus  or  did  he  not?  If  he  did,  why  does  Luke  not 
state  it?  Again,  what  did  Judas  say  to  Jesus,  or  Jesus  to 
Judas,  as  each  of  the  Synoptics  has  other  words  for  them? 
This  uncertainty  caused  John  to  give  a  version  of  the 
affair  entirely  new.  He  says  Judas  did  neither  hail  nor 
kiss  the  Master,  did  neither  point  him  out  to  the  soldiers 
nor  even  approach  him.  "Jesus,  therefore,  knowing  all 
things  that  should  come  upon  him,  went  forth,  and  said 
unto  them,  Whom  seek  ye?  They  answered  him,  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  I  am  he  ;  and 
Judas  also,  which  betrayed  him,  stood  with  them."  (John 
xviii.  4,  5).  So  it  is  not  merely  psychological  speculation 
which  contradicts  the  traitor's  kiss:  it  is  John's  plain 
statement  to  that  effect.  Here  again,  the  same  case  as 
above,  Matthew  amends  Mark,  Luke  doubts,  and  John 
contradicts.  We  must  either  adopt  John's  version  as  a 
fact,  or  admit  that  neither  of  them  knew  the  story.  It 
appears,  however,  that  John  had  a  correct  idea  of  the  af- 
fair. He  continues:  "As  soon  then  as  he  had  said  unto 
them,  I  am  he,  they  went  backward  and  fell  to  the  ground. 
Then  asked  he  them  again,  Whom  seek  ye?  And  they 
said,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Jesus  answered,  I  have  told 
vou  that  I  am  he  :  if  therefore  you  seek  me,  let  these 
their  way  :  that  the  saying  might  be  fulfilled,  which 
spake,  Of  them  which  thou  gavest  me,  have  I  lost  none. 


58  THE  SERVANT'S  EAR. 

The  scene  is  dramatical.  The  going  backward  and 
falling  to  the  ground,  of  course,  is  mere  embellishment. 
But  the  object  of  John  is  to  state  two  points  :  that  Jesus 
voluntarily  gave  himself  up  to  the  soldiers,  in  order  to 
save  his  disciples ;  and  that  he  did  not  permit  Judas  to 
complete  his  treachery,  in  order  to  be  enabled  to  say,  "I 
have  lost  none."  Both  points  fit  exactly  into  the  situa- 
tion. He  sacrificed  himself  to  save  his  disciples,  and 
could  not  have  considered  Judas  as  base  a  traitor  as  the 
evangelists  did,  since  he  was  only  instrumental  in  carry- 
ing out  the  project  and  resolution  of  Jesus,  from  motives 
which  may  have  been  patriotic. 

v.     THE  SERVANT'S  EAR. 

The  next  point  in  the  story  is  the  ear  of  the  high- 
priest's  servant.  For  according  to  the  testimony  of  all 
four  evangelists,  one  of  the  companions  of  Jesus  (John 
says  it  was  Peter)  drew  the  sword  in  defense  of  the  Mas- 
ter, and  cut  off  the  ear  of  the  high-priest's  servant, 
whose  name  was  Malchus.  The  story  looks  very  unlikely; 
for  if  Peter  or  another  man  had  offered  resistance  to  a 
band  of  armed  soldiers  and  officers,  they  naturally  must 
have  retaliated  or  at  least  arrested  the  perpetrator.  It  is 
difficult  to  imagine  that  he  should  have  escaped  unpun- 
ished. How  do  the  evangelists  get  over  this  point  ? 
Mark  says,  Jesus  offered  an  excuse :  "Are  ye  come  out, 
as  against  a  thief,  with  swords  and  staves  to  take  me?  I 
was  daily  with  you  in  the  temple  teaching,  and  ye  took 
me  not;  but  the  Scriptures  must  be  fulfilled."  We  do 
not  know  what  particular  passage  of  Scriptures  was  to  be 
fulfilled,  either  by  this  particular  mode  of  arrest,  or  by 
the  chopped-off  ear  of  the  high- priest's  servant,  and  to 
this  latter  event  it  must  have  particular  reference;  still, 
Mark  suggests,  that  these  words  of  Jesus  and  his  refer- 
ence to  Scriptures  sufficed  to  quiet  the  promiscuous  mob, 
not  to  retaliate  instantly  or  at  least  to  arrest  the  refractory 
man.  Matthew  is  not  satisfied  with  Mark's  explanation, 
and  adds  another  little  speech  of  Jesus.  He  said  to  the 
man  with  the  sword,  "Put  up  again  thy  sword  in  his 
place,  for  all  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with 
the  sword  (Genesis,  ix.  6).  Thinkest  thou  that  I  can  not 
now  pray  to  my  Father,  and  he  shall  presently  give  me 
more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels?  But  how  then 
shall  the  Scriptures  be  fulfilled,  that  thus  it  must  be?" 


UNIV 

THE   CAPTURE   OF  JESUS.  59 

After  this  additional  speech,  Matthew  quotes  Mark's  ob- 
servations on   the  subject.     In   the  opinion  of  Matthew, 
Jr.Mis  (juelled  a  rebellion  which   threatened   to   break   out 
on  the  spot,  by  the  armed   and  serious  resistance  of  the 
disciples,  admonishing  them  to  desist,  and   accusing  the 
soldiers    and    officers  of     imprudence    in    having    come 
against  him,  as  though   they  were   to  arrest  a  thief,  and 
thus  challenge  armed  resistance.     This  conduct  of  Jesua 
saved  the  rash  man.     The  soldiers  and  officers  may  have 
had  strict  orders  not  to  excite  an   insurrection,  and  may 
have  been  glad  to  come  off  so  easily.     It  is  quite  likely 
that  they  were  under  such  orders,  since  the  insurrection 
was  dreaded  by  the  high-priest  and  his  subordinates,  and 
Jesus  was  arrested  to  prevent    that  emergency.     Luke, 
however,  is  not  satisfied   with  this  rational  explanation. 
He  brings  in  a  miracle.     Jesus  only  said,  "Suffer  ye  thus 
far  ;"  then  he  touched  the  ear  and   healed   the   man   at 
once.     This   miracle,  Luke  must  have  imagined,  so  as- 
tonished the  armed  multitude  that  they  abstained  from 
retaliation.     Unfortunately  no  other  evangelist  mentions 
this  important  item,  which  they  must  have  done  had  they 
known  of  it ;  and  furthermore,  had  such  an  extraordinary 
miracle  been  wrought  in  presence  of  that  multitude,  they 
would  have  fled  in  dismay  and  terror, as  it  must  certainly 
have  convinced  them  of  the  supernatural  powers  of  Jesus. 
Besides,  it  is  evident  that  Luke  was  guided  in  this  point 
by  traditions  entirely  unknown  to  the  other  evangelists ; 
for  the  same  little  speech  which,  accord  ing  to  Mark  and 
Matthew,  Jesus  addressed  to  the  armed  band,  Luke  says 
he  addressed  to   the  chief  priests  and  captains   of  the 
temple,  and  the  elders  "which  were  come  to  him,"  evi- 
dently presenting  the  absurdity  that  all  those  dignitaries 
had  turned  out  at  midnight  to   arrest   Jesus,   as  though 
they  couid  not  muster  a  band  of  men  to  do  it  for  them. 
John,  with  this  double  version  of  the  story  before  him, 
decides  in  favor  of  Matthew.     He  narrates:  "Then  said 
JCMIS  unto  Peter,  Put  up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath  :  the 
cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink  it?" 
Jesus  quelled   the  insurrection,  ripe  to  break  out  on  the 
spot,  and  this  saved   the  man's  life  who  had  drawn  the 
sword.     That  man  was  not  Peter,  and  the  wounded  man 
was  not   the   high-priest's   servant,   or  else   Peter  would 
have  been  arrested  in  the  high-priest's  palace,  whither  he 


60  THE   ARREST. 

followed  Jesus,  and  where  no  insurrection  could  break 
out.  Peter  being  afterward  the  head  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  was  put  in  front  of  insurrectionary  disciples  of 
Jesus,  who  did  not  understand  his  mission,  in  the  opinion 
of  John.  Malchus  may  have  been  a  notorious  anti-chris- 
tian  man  in  aftertimes,  therefore  John  placed  him  in  this 
connection.  John  could  not  know  names  unknown  to 
the  Synoptics. 

VI.      THE   ARREST. 

Having  peremptorily  stopped  armed  resistance,  all  the 
disciples  and  friends  forsook  Jesus  and  fled,  Mark  and 
Matthew  maintain,  and  in  such  hot  haste  that  a  certain 
young  man  who  followed  Jesus  with  a  linen  cloth  cast 
about  his  naked  body,  being  caught  by  one  of  the  armed 
men,  left  the  linen  cloth  in  his  hands  and  fled  naked;  so 
Mark  narrates.  Peter  only,  and  John  says  also  one  dis- 
ciple, John,  followed  at  a  distance,  when  Jesus  was  led  to 
the  city  by  the  band  of  soldiers.  John  only  says  Jesus 
was  bound;  the  Synop'ics  know  nothing  of  it,  nor  is  it 
likely  that  he  was  bound. 

So  the  desperate  step  was  taken,  the  insurrection  was 
frustrated,  the  lives  of  the  disciples  and  friends  and  prob- 
ably of  thousands  more  were  saved,  a  threatening  calamity 
was  averted  from  the  head  of  the  nation.  Jesus  not 
being  able  to  surrender  himself  to  the  authorities  on  ac- 
count of  his  disciples'  zeal  and  love,  had  suggested  to 
Judas  Iscariot  the  speedy  accomplishment  of  his  treachery, 
and  succeeded  well  in  this  point.  But  who  will  describe 
the  disappointment,  the  mortification,  the  bitter  feelings 
of  the  man  who,  so  zealously  and  enthusiastically,  so 
cheerfully  and  hopefully,  had  embraced  a  cause,  and  now, 
by  the  force  of  uncontrollable  circumstances,  is  compelled 
to  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends  and  disciples,  without 
having  accomplished  his  object  and  without  hope  that  it 
ever  would  be  accomplished.  Again,  who  will  describe 
the  sublime  though  melancholy  satisfaction  of  the  man 
with  the  consciousness — I  die  for  my  own,  I  die  for  my 
friends,  I  die  that  they  may  live.  The  feelings  in  such  a 
situation  can  only  be  imagined,  never  perfectly  felt  or  ex- 
pressed by  one  who  never  was  in  that  situation ;  and 
imagination  is  the  mere  shadow  of  reality.  It  is  not  the 
hero's  death  on  the  field  of  battle,  when  the  passions  are 
excited  to  the  point  of  forgetting  the  agony  of  dissolution; 


I  IIH    TRIAL.  61 

victory  is  expected  and  not  death.  It  is  much  more.  It 
is  the"(|iiiet  martyr's  calm  and  magnanimous  resolution, 
premeditated  after  a  long  struggle  and  hitter  disappoint- 
ment. It  is  the  uTeat  determination  that  life  is  not  the 
highest  good  of  man  ;  that  there  are  .duties  holier  and 
gndlier  than  the  duty  of  self-preservation  :  love  and  affec- 
tions stronger  than  man's  love  of  earthly  existence. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   TRIAL. 

I.      TWO    HIGH-PRIESTS. 

The  Synoptics  narrate,  Jesus  was  led  directly  into  the 
high-priest's  or  Caiaphas's  palace.  John,  however,  adds 
(xviii.  13),  he  was  brought  first  to  the  house  of  Annas, 
the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  who  sent  him  bound  to  the 
latter  (ibid.  24).  The  cause  of  John's  deviation  from  the 
statement  of  the  Synoptics  can  easily  be  discovered. 
There  was  another  tradition  current  among  the  early 
Christians,  that  Annas  was  the  high-priest,  when  Jesus 
was  crucified,  as  is  evident  from  the  Acts  (iv,  6).  There 
was  no  Annas  high-priest  up  to  48  A.  c.  (Joseph.  Ant, 
xx.,  v.  2),  and  Luke,  who  keeps  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem 
after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  builds  up  a  congregation  at 
once,  certainly  thought  that  the  arrest  of  Peter  and  John 
took  place  shortly  after  the  crucifixion,  when  Annas  still 
was  high-priest.  In  order  to  account  for  both  traditions, 
John  gives  also  to  Annas  a  place  in  the  story ;  although 
contrary  to  that  tradition  he  maintains  expressly,  "And 
Caiaphas  was  high-priest  that  year/'  being  under  the  im- 
pression that  the  office  was  for  one  year  only,  which  might 
account  for  the  mistake.  But  Caiaphas  was  high-priest 
for  many  years,  and  remained  in  office  till  Pilate  was  re- 
moved. The  evangelists  did  not  settle  finally  this  doubt- 
ful point,  for  the  Gospel  writers  after  them,  especially 
those  whose  productions  are  known  as  the  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus  and  the  Story  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  were 
still  in  doubt  about  it,  and  invariably  place  Annas  before 
Caiaphas,  without  deciding  who  was  high-priest,  leaving 
the  reader  to  believe,  however,  Annas  occupied  this  dig- 


62  THE    PLACE. 

nity,  and  therefore  he  is  named  first.  It  is  unimportant 
whether  Jesus  was  led  first  to  Annas  and  then  to  Caiaphas, 
or  at  once  to  the  latter,  or  who  was  high-priest  at  the 
time;  but  it  is  important  to  know  that  the  early  Chris- 
tians, prior  to  the  evangelical  writers,  differed  on  the  sub- 
ject, whether  Caiaphas  or  Annas  was  high-priest  when 
Jesus  was  crucified,  because  it  proves  that  the  sources, 
from  which  this  part  of  the  Gospel  story  was  taken,  were 
very  uncertain. 

II.      THE    PLACE. 

The  next  point  of  disagreement  in  the  Gospel  accounts 
is  the  precise  locality  where,  in  the  high-priest's  palace, 
Jesus  was  retained  till  morning.  Here  we  have  two  dif- 
ferent accounts  which  John  again  harmonizes  to  the  best 
of  his  abilities.  Mark  (xiv.  53)  maintains,  when  Jesus 
arrived  in  the  high-priest's  palace,  ALL  THE  PRIESTS, 
scribes,  and  elders  met  there  ;  Matthew  says  they  had  met 
there  before.  Next  he  tells  us  that  Peter  followed  Jesus 
at  a  distance,  right  into  the  palace,  where  he  took  his  seat 
among  the  servants  about  the  fire.  Meanwhile  a  long 
and  tedious  trial  of  Jesus  took  place  before  those  author- 
ities, which  resulted  in  his  condemnation  and  personal 
maltreatment.  Then  Mark  tells  the  story  of  Peter  deny- 
ing his  Master ;  and  finally  (xv.  1)  he  communicates, 
that  in  the  morning  the  chief  priests,  elders,  and  scribes, 
as  also  the  whole  council,  resolved  to  send  Jesus  bound  to 
Pilate.  The  conspicuous  errors  in  Mark's  account  are, 
first,  that  ALL  THE  PRIESTS  were  assembled  in  the  palace, 
of  whom  there  could  not  have  been  less  than  two  hundred 
thousand  of  the  age  between  20  and  50,  showing  the  wri- 
ter's ignorance  in  this  point ;  and  second,  at  the  end  of 
this  scene,  Mark  brings  in  the  high- priest,  with  the  elders 
and  scribes  as  a  separate  body,  and  the  council  as  another. 
The  elders  being  counted  in  the  first  body,  of  what  was 
the  second  composed  ?  Matthew  observes  the  same  order 
of  the  story  precisely  as  Mark,  only  that  he  corrects  the 
errors  just  noticed,  and  states  (xxvi.  57),  that  the  scribes 
and  elders  had  met  in  the  palace,  omitting  "all  the  priests ;" 
and  he  concludes  the  scene  (xxvii.  1)  that  the  chief  priests 
and  the  elders  sent  Jesus  bound  to  Pilate,  omitting  Mark's 
"scribes  and  all  the  council."  This  leaves  no  doubt  that 
Matthew  copied  Mark's  account  and  improved  it  in  these 
and  some  other  particulars,  i.  e.,  he  adopted  it  on  the  au- 


TIM:  TRIAL,  63 

thority  of  Mark,  ami  amended  it  on  his  own.  According 
to  Mark's  narrative  Jrsus  must  have  been  in  one  of  the 
rooms  in  the  palace,  as  the  trial  could  not  have  come  off 
in  the  yard,  where  the  soldiers  and  servants  were  seated 
around  the  lire.  We  turn  over  to  Luke,  and  there  is  an 
entirely  dilVerent  account  of  the  affair.  He  narrates,  that 
-I* '-us  was  led  to  the  palace  of  the  high-priest,  Peter  fol- 
lowing at  a  distance  (xxii.  54).  A  fire  was  built,  around 
which  the  whole  crowd  was  seated  "in  the  midst  of  the 
yard"  or  court — not  in  the  hall,  as  the  translators  have  it — 
and  Jesus  was  sitting  among  them  at  the  fire  (ibid.  61) 
until  morning  (ibid.  66).  No  priests,  scribes,  ciders,  or 
council  appears,  or  meets  in  the  palace,  and  no  trial  takes 
place.  "As  soon  as  it  was  day,  the  elders  of  the  people, 
and  the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes  came  together,  and 
led  him  into  their  council'7  (ibid.).  According  to  Mark, 
Jesus  spent  his  night  before  the  council  in  a  trial,  hence 
in  a  room  or  hall ;  while  according  to  Luke,  no  council 
meets  and  no  trial  takes  place  in  the  night,  and  Jesus  re- 
mains with  his  captors  nea'r  the  fire  in  the  yard.  With 
these  two  conflicting  accounts  before  him,  John  narrates 
the  affair  in  a  manner  undecided  and  uncertain.  He  says 
(xviii.  18):  "And  the  servants  and  officers  stood  there, 
who  had  made  a  fire  of  coals ;  for  it  was  cold  (in  harvest- 
time???)  :  and  they  warmed  themselves  :  and  Peter  stood 
with  them  and  warmed  himself.  The  high-priest  then 
asked  Jesus  of  his  disciples,  and  of  his  doctrine/'  The 
formal  trial  being  left  out  and  the  informal  questions  of 
the  high-priest  substituted,  Jesus  may  have  remained  in 
the  yard  near  the  fire,  as  Luke  narrates,  and  still  there 
was  some  sort  of  an  inquiry,  if  no  trial,  to  pay  some  re- 
spect at  least  to  Mark's  account.  But  Luke  denies  alto- 
gether that  Jesus  conversed  with  or  even  saw  the  high- 
pi  iest  any  more.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  only  one 
account  can  be  correct,  either  Mark's  or  Luke's.  Either 
a  trial  took  place  during  the  night,  and  Jesus  was  in  the 
hall,  or  no  trial  took  place  in  the  night,  and  Jesus  re- 
mained in  the  yard,  near  the  fire,  among  his  captors.  This 
is  important  to  know ;  but  we  must  first  allude  to  two 
other  points  before  we  can  decide. 

III.      PETER   DENYING   THE   MASTER. 

If  the  evangelists  had  written  history  from  reliable 
sources,  one  point  in  this  narrative  they  ought  to  have 
known  fully  and  correctly,  namely,  Peter  denying  the 


64  PETER   DENYING   THE    MASTER. 

Master,  which  Peter  himself  must  have  communicated 
with  all  the  details  thereof.  But  here  again  the  conflict- 
ing accounts  are  most  remarkable.  Mark  (xi.,  xiv.  66) 
maintains  "  one  of  the  maids  of  the  high-priest"  said  to 
Peter,  "Thou  also  wast  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth ,"  which  he 
denied,  went  out  into  the  porch,  "  and  the  cock  crew." 
Then  another  maid  sees  him  and  says,  u  This  is  one  of 
them/'  which  he  again  denies.  Then  some  of  the  men 
renew  the  accusation.  "But  he  began  to  curse  and  to  swear, 
saying,  I  know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak.  And  the 
second  time  the  cock  crew.  And  Peter  called  to  mind  the 
word  that  Jesus  said  unto  him :  Before  the  cock  crow  twice, 
thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice.  And  when  he  thought  there- 
on he  wept."  Here  we  have  two  maids  and  finally  some 
men  addressing  Peter.  After  the  first  query  Peter  with- 
draws from  the  yard  to  the  porch,  the  cock  crows  twice, 
and  Peter  thinks  of  the  words  of  Jesus  without  any  fur- 
ther sign  or  signal.  All  this  occurred  after  the  trial  and 
condemnation  of  Jesus,  and  after  he  had  been  maltreated. 
Matthew  copies  Mark's  account  literally,  with  one  excep- 
tion, that  he  knew  of  the  cock  crowing  but  once,  because, 
according  to  his  traditions,  Jesus  did  not  say,  "  Before 
the  cock  crow  twice  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice."  He  said, 
"  Before  the  cock  crow  [finish  crowing]  thou  shalt  deny 
me  thrice."  So  Matthew  changes  this  feature  of  the 
story,  because  he  had  another  version  of  the  prophecy. 
This  suggests  at  once  that  the  story  was  written,  not  be- 
cause it  happened,  but  simply  because  a  certain  saying  of 
Jesus  was  traditionally  preserved,  only  that  the  exact 
words  were  not  known.  Luke  corrects  Mark's  account ; 
there  are  three  questioners  (the  second  person  is  no  maid), 
three  answers ;  but  the  cock  crows  but  once,  Peter  does  not 
leave  the  yard,  goes  not  unto  the  porch,  nor  would  he 
have  thought  of  the  prophecy  if  it  had  not  been  for  one 
point,  of  which  all  the  other  evangelists  were  ignorant: 
"  And  the  Lord  (Jesus)  turned  and  looked  upon  Peter. 
And  Peter  remembered  the  words  of  the  Lord,  how  he 
had  said  unto  him,  Before  the  cock  crow,  thou  shalt  deny 
me  thrice."  All  this  is  done  before  Jesus  was  subjected 
to  any  trial  or  maltreatment,  so  that  Peter  could  not  have 
known  anything  about  it.  John  says  (xviii.  25)  the  story 
happened  after  the  high-priest  had  interrogated  Jesus  and 
somebody  had  struck  him  (John  needs  Peter's  testimony); 
and  the  story  was  not  as  the  Synoptics  have  it ;  it  was  so: 


THE  TRIAL.  65 

"And  Simon  Peter  Stood  and  Warmed  himself.  Thevsuid  there- 
fore unto  him.  Art  not  tlx>u  also  one  ,,\  Jiis  disciples  V  lie  de- 
nied it,  and  said,  1  am  not.  One  of  the  servants  of  the  hijjh- 
jiriest,  IMMIILT  his  kinsman  \vli<»e  ear  J'eter  cut  oil',  saith,  Did  not 
I  866  thee  in  the  garden  witli  him?  Peter  then  denied  a,urain  ; 

and  Immediately  the  cock  crew." 

!•  was  not  asked  thrice  but  by  entirely  different 
persons  and  the  cock  crowed  but  once.  He  did  not  go  out, 
and  did  not  weep.  Jn  this  ease  Mark  has  his  own  way, 
Matthew  and  Luke  each  theirs,  and  John  is  independent  of 
either,  so  that  it  is  plain  it  was  not  the  story  which  they 
knew  :  it  was  the  supposed  prophecy  of  Jesus  which  gave 
rise  to  the  story.  This  is  not  history  written  from  authen- 
tic sou  re 

IV.  THE  MALTREATMENT  IN  THE  HIGH-PRIEST'S  PALACE. 

Precisely  the  same  is  the  case  with  the  maltreatment  to 
which  Jesus  was  subjected.  Mark  communicates  (xiv. 
65),  after  Jesus  had  been  condemned  by  the  nocturnal 
council,  "And  some  began  to  spit  on  him,  and  to  cover 
bis  lace,  and  to  buffet  him,  and  to  say  unto  him,  Prophesy ; 
and  the  servants  did  strike  him  with  the  palms  of  their 
hands."  The  "some"  of  whom  Mark  thinks  they  have 
committed  those  outrages,  must  have  been  members  of  the 
council;  so  that  all  on  a  sudden  all  the  chief  priests, 
elders,  and  scribes,  the  whole  council,  without  regard  to 
their  dignity,  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion,  the  express 
laws  of  their  people,  and  the  helplessness  of  the  convict, 
behaved  like  an  excited  mob,  a  band  of  lawless  and  heart- 
less ruffians.  This  is  hardly  credible.  Still  Matthew 
(xxiv.  67)^  adopts  this  account  and  adds  to  it,  according 
to  the  Latin  version,  "  And  some  struck  him  with  their 
fists/'  This  appeared  incredible  even  to  Luke.  He  says 
(xxii.  63)  ;  "Aiicl  the  men  that  held  Jesus  [the  soldiers 
and  officers]  mocked  him  and  smote  him.  And  when 
they  had  blindfolded  him  they  struck  him  on  (he  face, 
and  asked  him,  saying,  Prophesy— who  is  it  that  smote 
thee?  And  many  other  things  blasphemously  spake  they 
against  him."  This  looks  somewhat  more  probable,  as 
rude  warriors  and  hirelings  might  thus  outrage  the  law 
and  humanity.  Cases  of  this  kind  transpire  in  our  age 
of  enlightenment.  But  Luke  betrays  his  sources  by  the 
phrases  'they  struck  him  in  the  face/'  etc.,  "saying,  Pro- 
phesy," showing  distinctly  that  he  has  taken  his  version 


66  THE   NIGHTLY    TRIAL. 

of  the  story  from  Mark's  account,  and  having  no  nightly 
trial,  as  Mark  has,  he  transferred  the  scene  from  the  hall 
of  judgment  to  the  yard  or  court,  and  changed  the  actors 
from  the  men  of  the  council  to  the  soldiers  and  hirelings 
holding  Jesus.  Here  again  John  had  two  conflicting  ac- 
counts to  adjust.  He  denies  that  either  the  men  of  the 
council  or  the  soldiers  and  officers  struck  or  mocked 
Jesus  ;  and  to  give  some  satisfaction  to  Mark's  account, 
he  reduces  the  whole  outrage  to  one  blow.  Having  adopt- 
ed the  high-priest's  informal  inquiry  in  place  of  Mark's 
nightly  trial,  he  winds  up  thus  (xviii.  22)  :  "And  when 
he  had  thus  spoken,  one  of  the  officers  which  stood  by 
struck  Jesus  with  the  palm  of  his  hand,  saying,  Answer- 
est  thou  the  high-priest  so  ?"  This  reduces  the  whole 
scandal  to  one  officer  and  one  blow,  and  this  looks  like 
being  taken  from  the  trial  of  Paul  at  Jerusalem.  (Acts, 
xxiii.  2.)  It  is  impossible,  to  any  fair  critic,  to  discover 
fact  under  these  contradictory  statements  of  improbabilities. 
Either  Mark,  Luke,  or  John,  or  all  three  of  them,  stated 
a  falsehood  ;  the  latter  appears  most  likely,  for  neither 
Mark's  nightly  trial,  nor  Luke's  morning  trial,  nor  John's 
informal  conversation,  is  based  upon  fact. 

V.      THE  NIGHTLY   TRIAL. 

We  have  arrived  now  at  the  main  point — the  nightly 
trial  which  Mark  reports  and  Matthew  adopts.  This 
trial,  denied  by  Luke  and  John,  rests  upon  the  exclusive 
authority  of  Mark,  confirmed  by  Matthew.  The  first 
question  naturally  must  be,  Is  Mark  better  authority  than 
Luke  and  John?  We  think  Luke  and  John  were  so 
much  nearer  to  the  time  of  Mark  than  we  are,  that  their 
mere  denial  should  suffice  all  critical  minds  to  reject  the 
nightly  trial  of  Mark  as  a  piece  of  fiction,  especially  as 
we  have  seen  in  the  former  points  that  he  writes  no  au- 
thentic history.  Still,  in  order  to  establish  the  point  pos- 
itively, we  will  investigate  it  separately. 

The  whole  trial,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  is  con- 
trary to  Jewish  law  and  custom  as  in  force  at  the  time  of 
Jesus.  No  court  of  justice  with  jurisdiction  in  penal 
cases  could  or  ever  did  hold  its  session  in  the  place  of 
the  high-priest.  There  were  three  legal  bodies  in  Jerusa- 
lem* to  decide  penal  cases:  the  Great  Sanhedrin  of  seven- 

*  Besides  police  court  whose  judges  were  called  Dayanai  Guezer- 
oth,  having  jurisdiction  merely  in  cases  of  violation  of  ordi- 
nances. 


THE   TRIAL.  67 


ty-onc  members,  and  two  Minor  Sanhedrin  each  of  twenty- 
three  members.  The  court  of  priests  n^inD  7&*  J'l  HO 
had  no  penal  jurisdietimi  except  in  the  affairs  of  the 
temple  service,  and  then  over  priests  and  Levites  only. 
The  ( Jreat  Sanhedrin  held  its  sessions  in  a  hall  called 
JAxhhath  llttyyazith — "the  hall  of  hewn  stone" — adjoining 
the  temple  near  the  altar  of  copper.  There  and  there 
only  tlu  ir  ses.sions  were  legal  in  all  causes  of  life  and 
death.*  But  this  body  did  positively  not  exist  at  the  time 
when  Jesus  was  crucified,  having  been  dissolved  30  A.  c. 
In  nowise  then  any  passages  of  the  gospels  must  be  un- 
derstood to  refer  to  the  Great  Sanhedrin.  Again,  the  two 
Minor  Sanhedrin  had  their  legal  places  of  sessions — one  at 
the  gate  of  the  temple  inclosure  'JT2n  "1,1  HD3),  and 
the  other  at  the  gate  of  the  temple  court  (ITU^n  nD£})- 
There  and  nowhere  else  their  sessions  were  lawful  and 
their  judgments  legal.f  Another  court  having  penal 
jurisdiction  did  not  exist  in  Jerusalem,  nor  were  any  other 
places  assigned  to  them.  Therefore  Luke  states  (xxii. 
66),  "they  Jed  him  into  their  council/7  knowing 
that  no  such  court  could  hold  sessions  in  the  place  of 
the  high-priest.  Still  Mark  maintains,  the  nightly  trial 
took  place  in  the  palace  of  the  high-priest. 

Ko  court  of  justice  in  Israel  was  permitted  to  open  its 
sessions  at  night,  and  in  cases  of  capital  crime  no  session 
could  be  extended  after  the  evening  hour.  (Mishnah  San- 
hedrin, iy,  1.)  The  legally-appointed  time  for  the  sessions 
of  the  Minor  Sanhedrin  and  lower  courts  was  from  6  A. 
M.  to  12  M.,  and  for  the  Great  Sanhedrin  from  6.  A.  M.  to 
3  P.  M.J  Therefore  Luke  maintains,  the  session  of  the 
court  took  place  "as  soon  as  it  was  day."  Still  Mark 
maintains,  contrary  to  law  and  custom,  the  trial  came  off 
at  night. 

Xo  court  of  justice  in  Israel  was  permitted  to  hold  ses- 
sions on  Sabbath  or  any  of  the  seven  Biblical  holidays. 
In  cases  of  capital  crime,  no  trial  could  be  commenced  on 
Friday  or  the  day  previous  to  any  holiday,  because  it  was 
aot  lawful  either  to  adjourn  such  cases  longer  than  over 

*  Mishnah  Sanhedrin,  iii.;    Talmud  do.,   886;  Maimonides 
Hilch.    Sanhedrin,  iii.  1. 

t  Mishnah  Sanhedrin,  ii.  2;   Talmud  do.,  886;  Maimonides, 
J  Talmud  Sabbath,  10;  Sanhedrin,  88  6;  Maimonides,  ibid.  iii.  1. 


68  THE  NIGHTLY  TRIAL. 

night,  or  to  continue  them  on  the  Sabbath  or  holiday.* 
Hence  not  only  the  least  of  Passover,  but  also  the  Friday, 
is  in  the  way  of  Mark's  nightly  trial.  John  gains  noth- 
ing by  his  date;  for  the  night  between  the  13th  of  14th 
day  of  Nissan,  according  to  Jewish  computation  of  time, 
counts  to  the  14th  day,  on  which  no  trial  of  capital  crime 
could  be  opened.  Therefore  John  has  no  formal  trial  what- 
ever before  any  Jewish  authorities.  Still  Mark  has  it  in 
the  night  of  the  Passover  feast. 

No  criminal  court  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  tried 
any  case  without  the  co-operation  of  two  scribes  to  record 
the  proceedings.  It  was  prohibited  to  write  on  Sabbath 
and  holidays ;  still  the  Synoptics  have  the  trial  of  Jesus 
take  place  on  the  Passah  feast.  According  to  Jewish  law, 
a  man  whose  life  is  jeopardized  must  have  a  trial  last:ng 
at  least  two  days — the  first  for  the  prosecution  and  the 
second  for  the  defense  ;f  but  with  Mark  and  Matthew, 
the  whole  thing  is  done  in  a  few  hours,  and  with  Luke  in 
an  early  morning  hour.  In  fact,  every  step  in  the  trials 
described  by  the  Synoptics,  as  we  shall  notice  all  alona:, 
was  contrary  to  Jewish  law  and  custom. 

If  the  trial  of  Jesus,  as  reported  by  the  Synoptics,  in 
every  detail  violates  Jewish  law  and  custom,  then  it  must 
be  assumed  that  Caiaphas  and  his  conspirators  acted  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  Israel,  because  either  they  were  afraid 
of  the  people,  and  wished  to  dispose  of  Jesus  before  the 
community  could  have  been  informed  of  his  arrest,  or  be- 
cause his  destruction  was  preconcerted,  and  the  whole  pro- 
cedure was  a  mere  sham.  In  the  first  case,  we  must  natural- 
ly expect  strict  secrecy ;  and  in  the  second  case,  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  tell  why  any  trial  at  all,  genuine  or  sham,  should 
have  taken  place.  Having  preconcerted,  in  violation  of 
Jewish  law,  the  destruction  of  Jesus,  and  the  victim  be- 
ing in  their  hands,  any  and  every  form  of  law  was  super- 
fluous. Therefore  we  must  suppose  that  Caiaphas  and 
his  conspirators  were  not  only  villains  but  also  fools  who 
spent  a  whole  night  in  going  through  a  piece  of  mockery 
without  attaining  any  end  whatsoever.  The  idea  of  a 
sham  trial  must  be  abandoned.  The  Synoptics  could 
never  have  entertained  it,  as  we  shall  see  instantly  ;  but 

*  Mishnah  Sanhedrin,  iv.  1 ;  Talmud  do.,  32  to  34 ;  Maimonides, 
ibid.  iii.  3. 
T  Maimonides ;  Sanhedrin,  xii.  3. 


THE   TRIAL.  69 

we  will  first  discuss  the  point  of  secrecy.  According  to 
Luke,  the  trial  was  in  the  morning  and  in  the  regular 
judgment  hall,  hence  then1  was  no  secrecy  about  it.  Ac- 
cording to  Mark,  the  judges,  in  person  or  by  messengers, 
stirred  up  a  large  number  of  witnesses  to  testily  against 
dous.  They  must  certainly  have  spoken  to  many  before 
they  succeeded  in  finding  so  considerable  a  number  of 
witnesses.  The  judges  themselves  alarming  the  citizens  at 
midnight,  they  could  not  expect  secrecy.  It  rather  ap- 
pears that  Mark  did  not  think  of  any  secrecy.  He  must 
have  felt  the  weight  of  the  question,  If  the  trial  was  strict- 
ly secret  among  those  conspirators,  how  could  Mark  or 
any  body  besides  the  conspirators  know  what  was 
done  and  what  was  spoken  ?  He  reports  not  only 
alleged  facts  but  also  the  very  words  spoken  on  that  oc- 
casion. Therefore  it  was  necessary  to  bring  in  some 
honest  outsiders,  in  the  capacity  of  witnesses,  to  render 
plausible  the  origin  of  the  report;  and  bringing  in  honest 
outsiders,  the  idea  of  secrecy  is  dispelled. 

As  unlikely  as  it  appears  that  a  body  of  conspirators 
should  alarm  the  community  at  midnight,  going  about  in 
search  of  witnesses,  still  in  the  case  of  Mark  it  proves 
that  he  had  no  idea  of  a  sham  trial.  In  his  ignorance  of 
Jewish  law,  he  imagined  the  trial  which  he  described 
was  lawful  among  Jews.  He  proves  this,  in  the  first 
placo,  by  the  very  statement  that  witnesses  were  sought 
and  produced.  A  court  convoked  and  acting  in  rebel- 
lion to  law  and  custom  can  be  considered  only  a  band  of 
rebels.  What  use  have  such  men  of  witnesses?  Being 
lawless  from  the  beginning,  no  legal  restraint  makes  the 
presence  of  witnesses  necessary.  In  the  second  place, 
Mark  tells  us,  not  only  was  the  testimony  of  some  wit- 
nesses considered  insufficient  to  condemn  Jesus  (verse  56), 
and  rejected  on  that  ground,  but  also  the  testimony  of  false 
witnesses  was  rejected,  so  that  Jesus  was  not  condemned  on 
the  testimony  of  any  witness,  all  being  rejected  as  insuffici- 
ent. Those  judges  must  have  been  foolish.  They  went  about 
at  midnight  in  a  populous  city  to  produce  false  witnesses, 
as  Matthew  asserts,  and  when  they  had  them  they  proved 
worthless.  Why  did  they  not  instruct  the  witnesses 
what  they  must  say  and  how  they  must  say  it?  Had 
Mark  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  a  sham  trial,  he 
could  not  possibly  have  supposed  the  judges  to  have  been 
so  scrupulously  exact  with  the  testimony.  He  certainly 


70  THE  TIME  OF  THE  TKIAL. 

thought  of  an  honest,  lawful  trial,  in  the  legal 
form ;  an  honest  and  legal  examination  of  witnesses, 
a  fair  consideration  of  the  testimony,  and  after  mature  re- 
flection the  rejection  thereof  on  account  of  insufficiency. 
If  those  judges  had  lived  in  our  days,  in  New  York, 
London,  Paris,  or  elsewhere,  they  would  certainly  have 
been  more  successful  in  the  discovery  of  a  number  of  false 
witnesses,  especially  if  the  high  dignitaries  of  any  coun- 
try should  seek  them.  The  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  it  ap- 
pears, according  to  Mark  and  Matthew,  were  honest  men. 

VI.       THE   TIME   OF   THE   TRIAL. 

Not  only  the  law  and  custom  of  the  Hebrews,  as  stated 
above,  and  the  contradictions  of  Luke  and  John,  prove 
the  fictitious  character  of  Mark's  nightly  trial ;  but  also 
the  space  of  time  which  it  is  supposed  to  have  occupied, 
testifies  against  it.  The  eating  of  the  Passover  meal  could 
not  have  commenced  before  6  to  7  p.  M.  Say  with  all  the 
speeches,  conversations,  hymns  and  ceremonies,  it  lasted 
only  three  hours  (with  John's  speeches  and  prayer  it 
must  have  lasted  till  midnight);  no  less  time  can  be  allot- 
ted to  it ;  then  Jesus  left  the  house  between  9  and  10  P.  M. 
Walking  from  the  city  out  to  Gethsernane  takes  one  hour 
at  least,  so  he  arrived  there  between  10  and  11  p.  M.  Now 
comes  the  passion  scene,  the  prayers,  the  returning  three 
times  to  the  disciples,  which  must  have  lasted  another 
hour.  This  fixes  the  capture  of  Jesus'between  11  and  12. 
The  conversations  at  the  capture  and  walking  to  the  high- 
priest's  palace  must  have  taken  up  time  to  about  1  A.  M. 
Another  hour  at  least  must  have  been  occupied  by  the 
judges  in  their  search  after  witnesses,  so  that  the  trial 
could  not  have  commenced  before  2  A.  M.  "  Early  in  the 
morning,"  as  Mark  says,  or  at  daybreak,  according  to 
Matthew;  hence  before  6  A.  M.  the  trial  was  all  over,  so 
that  all  had  to  be  done  in  four  hours,  which,  according  to 
Jewish  law,  is  impossible. 

According  to  Jewish  law,  it  is  every  body's  duty,  in 
criminal  cases,  to  testify  before  court,  also  if  he  is  not 
summoned.  Two  witnesses  who  have  seen  the  crime 
committed,  each  of  them  having  seen  the  entire  deed, 
their  testimony  concurring  in  the  main  and  the  leading 
particulars,  establish  the  fact  to  convict  the  criminal. 
Direct  and  full  testimony  only  is  valid  in  cases  of  capital 


THE   TRIAL.  71 

crimes.  Circumstantial  evidence  is  insufficient.  If  for 
instance  one  lias  seen  a  man  lying  in  wait,  another  has 
Been  him  load  a  pistol,  a  third  has  heard  the  noise  of  a 
shot  coming  from  that  tree  where  the  man  laid  in  wait, 
and  a  fourth  sees  the  victim  shot  dead  ;  their  testimony 
would  not  convict  the  murderer  to  subject  him  to  the  sen- 
tence of  death.  Each  witness  must  have  seen  the  whole 
deed.  Therefore  the  examination  and  cross-examination 
of  the  witnesM's  was  very  strict  and  lengthy.  In  all  crim- 
inal cases  each  witness  was  examined  by  himself  on  the 
principle  expressed  in  Deuteronomy,  xiii.  15,  "Then  shalt 
thou  inquire,  and  make  search,  and  ask  diligently."*  He 
was  first  asked  questions  to  ascertain  that  he  was  a  lawful 
witness  in  the  case  on  trial,  viz.,  concerning  the  person  of 
the  witness,  his  name,  character,  place  of  residence, 
etc.,  and  then  concerning  the  culprit,  that  he  could  identify 
him,  was  no  enemy,  and  no  relative  of  his,  etc.  Next  came 
the  admonition  addressed  to  the  witnessf  that  he  state 
nothing  which  he  only  heard  others  say  ;  that  he  should 
be  closdy  examined  and  cross-examined  ;  that  the  blood 
of  the  culprit,  if  unjustly  condemned,  falls  upon  the  false 
witness ;  that  God  created  only  one  man,  therefore  who- 
ever causes  the  death  of  one  innocent  man,  has  commit- 
ted a  crime  as  monstrous  as  though  he  had  destroyed  a 
whole  world. I  After  this  the  seven  main  questions  con- 
cerning the  crime  were  asked,  six  concerning  the 
time,  and  one  the  place,  when  and  where  the  crime 
was  committed,  and  particular  questions  relating  to 
the  nature  of  that  particular  crime.  These  questions  being 
answered  and  written  down  by  a  scribe  of  the  court,  cir- 
cumstantial questions  were  asked,  answered,  and  commit- 
ted to  writing.§  Nextcamethecross-examination.il  The 
twenty-three  members  of  the  court  being  the  judges,  jury 
and  lawyers  in  one  body,  every  one  of  them  was  entitled 
to  cross-examine  the  witness. 

The  first  witness  being  so  examined,  he   was  dismissed 
and  one  or  more   witnesses  were  heard,  each  by   himself 

*  Mishnuh,  Sanhedrin,  iv.  1. 
t  Mishnali,  Sanhedrin,  iv.     3  Talmud  do.,  37  a. 
t  Z.  Frankcl,  Der  Gerichtliche   Beweis  nach  mosaish-talmudi- 
schem  Ilechte.  p.  191. 

I  Mishnah,  Sanhedrin,  iv.  2. 

|]  Tal.  do.,  32  6.    inn  nun  pjn  *poni?  no  apo1?  aipcD  o n;n  rm 


72  FALSE  WITNESSES. 

and  precisely  in  the  same  manner.  The  concurrence  of 
their  testimony  in  the  main  points  established  the  fact. 
The  least  deviation  in  time,  place,  or  the  crime  itself,  ren- 
dered the  testimony  null  and  void,  and  might  have  ex- 
posed the  witnesses  to  the  punishment  of  the  law.*  (Deut, 
xix.  16.) 

It  is  evident  that  the  examination  of  but  one  set  of 
witnesses  took  longer  than  four  hours.  But  Mark  and 
Matthew  report  many  false  witnesses  to  have  appeared 
against  Jesus,  whose  testimony  was  taken  and  rejected  as 
insufficient ;  and  after  them  another  set  of  witnesses  ap- 
pears who  testified,  "We  heard  him  say,  I  will  destroy 
this  temple  that  is  made  with  hands,  and  within  three 
days  I  will  build  another  made  without  hands.77  Also 
this  set  of  witnesses  was  examined  and  their  testimony  re- 
jected because  their  "witness  did  not  agree  together."  It  is 
simply  impossible  to  dispose  legally  of  so  many  witnesses 
in  four  hours  or  in  one  day.  They  must  have  occupied 
the  attention  of  a  court  acting  under  the  above  laws  for 
two  or  three  days. 

It  is  in  vain  to  put  in  here  the  plea,  these  conspirators 
made  short  work  also  of  the  witnesses.  If  they  were  all 
villains,  they  stood  now  before  some  honest  men,  viz.,  the 
witnesses  who  would  not  make  any  false  statement.  Is  it 
at  all  imaginable  that  fhe  high-priest,  together  with  the 
highest  dignitaries  of  a  country,  and  the  most  celebrated 
temple  in  the  world,  let  them  be  the  worst  of  villains, 
will  recklessly  and  shamelessly  rebel  against  the  law  of 
the  nation,  in  presence  of  honest  citizens  and  in  a  case  of 
a  man's  life  being  in  jeopardy?  The  most  licentious 
hypocrites  even,  under  these  circumstances,  must  have  re- 
spected the  form  of  law  at  least.  Mark  never  supposes 
otherwise.  But  then,  it  was  impossible  to  dispose  of  the 
case  in  four  hours  or  in  one  day. 

VII.      FALSE   WITNESSES. 

Aside  of  all  these  points,  Mark  forgot  the  Jewish  law 
concerning  false  witnesses,  which  the  Pentateuch  enjoins 
(Deuter.,  xix.  16),  both  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  rigidly 
enforced,  the  various  statutes  and  discussions  thereon 
forming  a  very  extensive  portion  of  the  Talmud.  The  law 
is  explicit  on  this  point :  "  And  the  judges  shall  inquire 

*  Maimonides,  Hil.  Eduth  i.,  ii.,  iii.,  iv. 


THE   TRIAL.  73 

diligently  ;  and  lu>liol(],  if  the  witness  he  a  false  witness, 
lie  has  testified  a  falsehood  against  his  brother;  then  shall 
do  unto  him  as  he  had  purjmsed  to  do  unto  his  broth- 
er ;  and  tho'i  Mialt  put  away  the  evil  from  the  midst  of 
Ihcr."  Maimomdes  in  his  Mishnah  Thorah  (1/i/r/i  Jiluth, 
xvii.)  has  codified  the  laws  concerning  false  witnesses, 
and  shows  how  rigidly  this  part  of  the  laws  was  enibreed. 
In  their  opposition  to  eapital  punishment,  the  Pharisees 
Mirrounded  the  procedure  and  evidence  with  so  many 
technical  complications  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  impose 
this  highest  penalty  of  the  law  upon  any  culprit.  One  of 
their  means  to  this  end  was,  they  insisted,  if  the  culprit 
had  not  been  forewarned  of  the  magnitude  of  the  crime 
and  its  consequences  before  its  commission  (njOfii"P» 
capital  punishment  could  not  be  inflicted  on  him.  But 
the  false  witnesses  accusing  one  of  a  capital  crime,  were 
excluded  from  this  benefit.  Therefore  it  could  not  have 
been  an  easy  task  in  Jerusalem  to  find  false  -yitnesses  to 
testily  in  a  case  of  capital  crime,  as  every  person  almost 
must  have  known  the  inevitable  consequences  of  that 
crime.  ^  If  the  judges,  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  actually  suc- 
ceeded in  producing  false  witnesses,  what  was  done  with 
them  after  their  crime  had  become  obvious  ?  The  court 
had  not  the  shadow  of  a  right  to  dismiss  them,  of  which 
Matthew,  it  appears,  knew  nothing.  It  must  not  be  ad- 
vanced that  a  court  which  seeks  false  witnesses  to  condemn 
a  man  will  not  hold  them  responsible  for  their  crimes;  for 
Mark  evidently  had  the  intention  to  report  lawful  proceed- 
ings, only  that  he  did  not  know  the  laws  of  the  Jews  in  the 
time  of  Jesus.  Besides,  if  the  judges  as  far  as  they  were 
concerned  had  even  assured  the  false  witnesses  that  they 
should  go  unpunished,  they  still  risked  their  lives,  as  any 
other  person  present  might  at  any  time  thereafter  have 
called  them  to  account  for  the  crime  committed. 

VIII.      SELF-ACCUSATION. 

The  conduct  of  the  high-priest,  as  described  by  Mark 
was  no  less  illegal  than  the  whole  trial.  First,  he  asked 
Jesus,  "Answerest  thou  nothing?  What  is  it  which 
these  witness  against  thee  ?"  The  high-priest  must  have 
known  that  the  law  does  not  require  the  culprit  to  say 
anything,  unless  he  chooses  to  defend  himself.  There  was 
no  reason  for  Jesus  to  do  this,  if  the  witnesses  did  not 


74  BLASPHEMY. 

agree,  and  the  question  of  the  high- priest  is  a  piece  of 
folly.  But  Mark  did  not  know  it.  He  evidently  believed 
the  high-priest  wanted  to  elicit  a  self-criminating  conies- 
sion  of  Jesus;  for  he  goes  on  to  report,  when  Jesus  made 
no  reply  to  the  above  queries,  the  high-priest  asked  him, 
"Art  thou  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?"  Jesus 
answering  in  the  affirmative,  the  high-priest  renting  his 
clothes  (which  again  was  forbidden  on  Sabbath  and  holi- 
days) said,  "What  need  we  any  further  witnesses?  Ye 
have  heard  the  blasphemy" — evidently  supposing,  as  also 
the  judges  are  supposed  to  have  done,  the  comession  of 
Jesus  was  sufficiently  self-criminating  to  condemn  him. 
This  is  an  impardonable  blunder.  Self-accusation  con- 
demns none  in  Jewish  law.  "No  man  incriminates  him- 
self "*  was  the  legal  maxim.  The  Jewish  procedure  be- 
gins with  the  accusation  (the  inquisition  is  Roman),  who 
had  to  produce  the  corpus  delicti,  Then  followed  the  tes- 
timony of  no  less  than  two  witnesses.  Without  either  no 
sentence  of  capital  punishment  could  be  rendered.  Self- 
accusation  in  cases  of  capital  crime  was  worthless.  For 
if  not  guilty  he  accuses  himself  of  a  falsehood  ;  if  guilty, 
he  is  a  wicked  man,  and  no  wicked  man,  according  to 
Jewish  law,  is  permitted  to  testify,  especially  not  in  penal 
cases.  The  high-priest  must  have  known  all  that,  but 
Mark  did  not,  and  produces  the  high-priest  in  the  role  of 
a  grand  inquisitor. 

IX.      BLASPHEMY. 

The  point  at  issue,  according  to  Mark,  was  blasphemy. 
Jesus  admitting  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed,  no  further  testimony  was  considered  necessary:  the 
verdict  of  guilty  and  the  sentence  of  death  were  at  once  and 
unanimously  pronounced  by  all  thejudges.  The  mistakes  in 
this  point  are  numerous  and  obvious.  In  the  first  place, 
the  law  requires,  in  cases  of  capital  crime,  that  the  argu 
ment  be  opened  by  the  defense,  "  from  the  side,"  i.  e., 
by  the  least  influential  member  of  the  court,  to  be  fol- 
lowed up  to  the  most  influential,  till  all  who  wish  to  de- 
fend the  culprit  have  spoken.  Then  the  prosecution  fol- 
lows. If  none  of  thejudges  defend  the  culprit,  i.  e.,  all 
pronounce  him  guilty,  having  no  defender  in  the  court, 
the  verdict  of  guilty  was  invalid  and  the  sentence  of 

*  Sanhedrin  9  b,  Kethubath  1]      Yehamoth  24,  and  elsewhere. 


THE   TRIAL,  75 

death  could  not  be  executed.*  But  according  to  Mark  all 
the  judges  agreed  and  condemned  Jesus,  none  defended 
him.  This  is  probably  the  worst  blunder  made  by  Mark. 
For  if  it  was  a  mere  sham  trial,  a  sham  defense  must 
have  been  made  to  satisfy  the  law. 

Again,  had  Jesus  maintained  before  a  body  of  Jew- 
ish lawyers  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  they  could  not  have 
found  him  guilty  of  blasphemy,  because  every  Israelite 
had  a  perfect  right  to  call  himself  a  sou  of  God,  the  law 
(Deut.,  xiv.  1)  stating  in  unmistakable  words,  "  Ye  are 
sons  of  the  Lord  your  God."  When  Rabbi  Judah  ad- 
vanced the  opinion,  "  If  ye  conduct  yourselves  like  sons 
of  God,  ye  are ;  if  not,  not,"  there  was  Rabbi  Mair  on 
hand  to  contradict  him  :  "  In  this  or  in  that  case,  ye 
are  the  sons  of  the  Lord  your  God."f  No  law,  no  prec- 
edent, and  no  fictitious  case  in  the  Bible  or  the  rabbinical 
literature  can  be  cited  to  make  of  this  expression  a  case 
of  blasphemy. 

Had  Jesus  maintained  before  a  Jewish  court  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  in  the  trinitarian  sense  of  the  terms,  viz.,  that 
he  was  part,  person,  or  incarnation  of  the  Deity,  he  must 
have  said  it  in  terms  to  be  understood  to  that  effect,  as 
ambiguous  words  amount  to  nothing.  But  if  even  clearly 
understood,  the  court  could  only  have  found  him  insane, 
but  not  guilty  of  any  crime.  John  could  write  for  Gen- 
tile readers,  that  Jesus  said  of  himself,  "  I  am  the  path, 
the  truth,  and  the  life ;"  l(  If  ye  have  learned  to  know 
me,  ye  have  also  learned  to  know  rny  Father ;"  "  Who- 
ever seeth  me,  seeth  the  Father"  (John,  xiv.),  because  the 
heathens  had  never  risen  above  pantheism  and  anthropo- 
morphism. With  them  the  universe  was  Deity  in  con- 
creto,  and  the  Deity  was  the  universe  in  abstrado,  mani- 
festing and  accommodating  himself  to  the  human  senses  by 
incarnation,  the  most  perfect  of  which  was  the  human 
shape.  With  them  the  Father  could  be  seen  and  known 
by  seeing  and  knowing  the  incarnation  called  Son.  Had 
anybody  uttered  the  same  ideas  in  Jerusalem,  nobody 
would  have  considered  him  guilty  of  blasphemy  ;  every 
sensible  Jew  would  have  taken  him  to  be  insane.  But 
•Jous  is  not  reported  to  have  said  anything  of  tne  kind  in 

*  Maimonides,  Sanhedrin,  ix.  1  and  xi.  7,  and  sources  noticed 
there. 

r  Siphri  Re'eh,  96. 


76  BLASPHEMY. 

the  trial  under  consideration,  and   if  he  had  said  so,  no 
case  of  blasphemy  could  have  been  made  of  it. 

Mark  reports  furthermore,  that  Jesus  did  not  simply  af- 
firm the  high-priest's  question,  but  added  :  "  And  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power, 
and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  Jesus  can  not 
have  said  these  words.  Our  reasons  are,  they  are  not 
true;  none  of  the  judges  and  witnesses  present  ever  did 
see  him  either  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power  or  com- 
ing in  the  clouds  of  heaven.  These  words  could  have 
originated  only  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  when  the  Jew- 
ish Christians  expected  his  immediate  return  as  the  Mes- 
siah and  restorer  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  so  that  those 
very  men  could  see  him  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
Besides,  Jesus,  the  Pharisean  Jew,  could  not  have  enter- 
tained the  anthropomorphism  that  God  had  a  right  hand. 
Again,  this  passage  alludts  to  a  supposed  prophecy  of 
Daniel  (vii.  13):  "  I  looked  on  the  nightly  visions,  and 
behold,  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  came  one  like  a  son  of 
man"  (like  a  human  being).  This  "son  of  man,"  ac- 
cording to  Saadiah,  refers  to  the  Messiah,  to  come  hereaf- 
ter ;  according  to  Ibn  Ezra,  it  refers  to  the  people  of  Is- 
rael ;  according  to  Mark,  it  refers  to  Jesus.  Either  of 
the  three  opinions  is  a  mere  guess.  It  appears  entirely 
different  to  us.  We  think,  after  Daniel  had  predicted  the 
end  of  all  crowns,  thrones,  sceptres,  despots  and  rulers  in 
general,  he  declares  that  then  man  will  regain  his  rights 
and  his  dominion  given  him  by  the  Almighty.  "  This 
dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion  which  shall  not  pass 
away,  and  his  kingdom  is  one  which  shall  never  be  de- 
stroyed ;"  humanity,  liberty,  and  justice  shall  reign  for- 
ever under  God's  most  benign  scepter.  Our  opinion  is  as 
good  as  any  of  the  above,  hence  there  are  four  of  the  rn, 
and  the  reader  has  his  choice.  Jesus  certainly  had  no 
idea  that  he  was  that  Bar  JEnash,  whose  kingdom  should 
last  forever,  as  he  considered  himself  sent  to  the  house  of 
Israel  only,  and  saw  his  kingdom  come  to  an  end  before 
he  had  really  established  it.  But  there  is  another  point 
to  be  considered  in  this  connection.  The  Jews  did  not 
consider  Daniel  a  prophet,  and  Maimonides  plainly  states* 

*  Moreh  Nebuchim,  ii.,  45. 

PBD   pjo    *      *     mnVrn    onB>   icNcn   -pro  viN^cr    VJOJT   pi 
13  -m**  Di^na  ori3  IDNJ  T^N  njmoD  no'jo 


THE  TRIAL.  77 

that  Daniel's  dreams  must  not  be  considered  prophetical 
in  the  sen>e  of  the  Pentateuch,  Therefore,  his  hook  was 
not  accepted  in  the  prophetical  canon,  and  was  placed  in 
the  Iliography.  It  is  very  doubtful  that  this  hitter  col- 
lee  lion  existed  a<  part  of  the  Bible  in  the  days  of  Jesus. 
AVhy,  then,  should  Jesus  have  referred  to  a  passage  of 
doubtful  authority  and  meaning,  to  establish  bis  dignity; 
why  not  to  an  authentic  prophetical  passage?  lie  did 
not  make  this  statement,  is  the  only  answer  we  can  see; 
but  if  he  had  made  it  tuere  was  no  blasphemy  in  it,  ac- 
cording to  the  Jewish  law. 

The  blasphemy  law  is  in  Leviticus  (xxiv.  15  to  20), 
which  ordains,  u  If  any  man  shall  curse  his  God  [i.  e.,  by 
whatever  name  he-  may  call  his  God],  he  shall  bear  his 
sin,"  but  the  law  has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  dictates  no 
punishment,  takes  no  cognizance  thereof.  "  But  he  who 
shall  curse  the  name  of  Jehovah,  he  shall  surely  be  put 
to  death,"  be  the  eurser  native  or  alien.  Another  blas- 
phemy la\v  exists  not  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  an- 
cient Hebrews  expounded  this  law,  that  none  is  guilty  of 
blasphemy  in  the  first  degree,  unless  he  curses  God  him- 
self by  the  name  of  Jehovah ;  or,  as  Maimonides  main- 
tains, by  the  name  Adonai.*  The  penalty  of  death  is 
only  threatened  in  the  first  degree.  The  Mishnah  states 
expressly  as  the  general  law,  "  The  blasphemer  is  not 
guilty,  unless  he  (in  cursing  the  Deity)  has  mentioned 
the  name  itself"  (of  Jehovah  or  Adonai),f  so  that  there 
can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  such  was  the  law  in  Is- 
rael. It  is  clear  that  the  statements  made  by  Mark,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus,  had  nothing  in  the  world  to  do  with 
the  blasphemy  laws  of  the  Jews;  that  the  renting  of  gar- 
ments by  the  high-priest,  as  the  balance  of  the  proceed- 
ings, can  be  fictitious  only.  But  even  if  there  had  been 
a  case  of  blasphemy,  self-accusation  would  not  condemn 
the  culprit,  without  the  accusation,  trial,  witness,  etc.,  as 
in  other  cases  of  capital  crime. 

Not  one  point  in  the  whole  trial  agrees  with  Jewish 
law  and  custom.  It  is  impossible  to  save  it.  It  must  be 
given  up  as  a  transparent  and  unskilled  invention  of  a 
Gentile  Christian,  of  the  second  century,  who  knew  noth- 

*  Maimonides,  H.  Akkum,  ii.  7;  Talmud  Sanhedrin,  55  and  56 
and  elsewhere 
•j-  ovn  ttno'ip  17  a^n  W 


78  LUKE'S  TRIAL. 

ing   of  Jewish   law  and    custom,   and   was   ignorant   of 
the  state  of  civilization  in  Palestine,  in  the  time  of  Jesus. 

x.     LUKE'S  TRIAL. 

Luke  reports  no  trial  to  have  taken  place  during  the 
night.  He  maintains  Jesus  remained  all  the  time  among 
his  captors  near  the  fire.  He  looked  on  Peter  when  lie 
had  repeatedly  denied  him,  and  that  must  have  been  in 
the  morning  after  the  crowing  of  the  cock.  But  in  the 
morning,  Luke  maintains  (xxii.  66),  on  the  morning  of 
the  Passover  feast,  "  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  the 
chief  priests,  and  the  scribes  came  together  [where  ?]  and 
led  him  into  their  council."  To  what  purpose  this  stately 
procession  ?  Who  has  ever  heard  of  a  whole  court  go- 
ing to  receive  a  culprit  and  escort  him  to  the  place  of 
trial  ?  In  this  case,  especially,  they  being  afraid  of  the 
people,  alarmed  the  community  early  in  the  morning  by 
a  procession  of  the  chief  dignitaries  of  the  nation,  on  so 
unusual  a  day  for  legal  business  as  the  first  day  of  the 
Passover.  This  appears  quite  improbable. 

Remarkable  is  the  fact,  that  Luke  exonerates  Caiaphas 
altogether.  He  never  mentions  his  name  or  his  presence 
in  the  trial,  or  before  Pilate,  so  that  Jesus  did  not  meet 
the  high-priest  at  all.  He  must  have  known  from  Jose- 
phus  (Antiquit.,  xviii.,  iv.  3)  the  importance  attached  to 
the  person  of  the  high-priest,  on  the  three  feasts  of  the 
Passover,  Pentecost,  and  Tabernacle,  when  he  ap- 
peared in  the  temple  in  the  sacerdotal  vestments,  as  pre- 
scribed in  the  law  of  Moses.  These  official  garments 
•were  kept,  since  the  days  of  John  iiyrcan,  in  the  castle 
near  the  temple,  which  Herod  rebuilt  and  called  Antonia, 
so  sacred,  indeed,  that  the  Romans  holding  this  castle  and 
vestments  as  a  sort  of  hostage,  kept  them  in  a  stone 
chamber,  under  the  seal  of  the  priests,  and  of  the  keep- 
ers of  the  temple,  the  captain  of  the  guard  lighting  a 
lamp  there  every  day.  Seven  days  before  each  of  the 
three  festivals,  the  garments  were  delivered  to  the  priests, 
to  be  purified,  and  to  be  worn  by  the  high-priests  in  the 
temple  during  the  festive  services.  The  importance  at- 
tached to  the  garments  naturally  suggests,  how  much 
more  importance  must  have  been  attached  to  the  person 
wearing  them.  Therefore,  Luke  must  necessarily  have 
supposed  that  the  high-priest,  during  the  feast,  was  not 


Tin:  TRIAL.  79 

to  be  seen  anywhere  outside  of  the  temple  or  his  palace. 

The  Mishnah  (Yoma,  i.  1)  reports  the  ancient  practice, 
that  seven  days  l>ciore  the  day  of  atonement,  the  high- 
priest  Ictt  his  residence,  to  stay  in  a  lodge  of  the  temple, 
to  the  dose  of  divine  service  on  that  day.  The  Yeru- 
slialmi  adds  (//>/</.,  i.  1),  that  the  predecessor  of  Caiaphas, 
Simon  ben  (1oniithus  (or  Kimhith),  on  the  day  before  the 
day  of  atonement,  went  out  of  the  temple  to  converse 
with  the  king  (Herod  of  Galilee?),  who,  in  the  conversa- 
tion, spattered  spittle  on  the  high-priest's  garments;  ho 
considered  himself  unclean,  and  unfit  to  preside  next  day 
over  the  divine  services.  His  brother  Judah  represented 
him.  Therefore,  Luke  takes  just  precaution  not  to  have 
the  high-priest  come  in  contact  with  anybody  on  the 
evening  and  day  of  the  feast,  and  leaves  him  altogether 
out  of  the  proceedings,  There  can  be  but  little  reasona- 
ble doubt  that  the  high-priest  in  person  kept  aloof  of  the 
whole  proceedings,  and  the  brief  conversation  of  Jesus 
and  the  high-priest,  reported  by  John,  is  spurious  ;  be- 
cause the  high-priest  that  evening,  even  if  it  was  a  day 
before  the  feast,  did  certainly  not  go  near  unwashed  Ro- 
man soldiers,  or  others  who  did  not  observe  the  law  of 
Levitical  cleanness,  as  the  least  contact  with  any  of  them 
would  have  rendered  him  unfit  to  wear  the  sacred  vest- 
ments on  the  feast. 

Luke  supposed  Caiaphas  had  his  creatures  to  do  the 
work  for  him,  in  the  elders  of  the  people,  the  chief-priests, 
and  the  scribes,  all  of  whom  are  exonerated  by  John,  so 
that  1  his  clause  is  evidently  copied  from  Mark.  What 
did  they  do  with  Jesus  in  their  council?  No  witnesses 
and  no  false  witnesses  were  examined;  none  were  present; 
no  sort  of  a  legal  trial  was  attempted;  they  simply  asked 
him,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ  ?"  To  what  purpose  this 
question  ?  Were  there  no  witnesses  in  the  city  to  testify 
that  Jesus  had  been  proclaimed  the  Messiah  king,  and 
that  he  acquiesced  in  this  proclamation?  But  the  sequel 
shows  that  Luke  merely  tried  to  improve  Mark's  account, 
in  which  he  partially  succeeded.  When  Jesus  admitted 
that  he  was  the  Messiah,  those  elders  said,  "  What  need 
we  any  further  witness,  for  we  ourselves  have  heard  of  his 
own  mouth  ?  "  These  words  are  literally  transposed  from 
Mark's  nightly  trial  to  Luke's  morning  trial.  No  sensi- 
ble reader  will  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  same  ques- 


80  LUKE'S  TRIAL. 

tion  and  answer,  literally  the  same,  were  made  twice. 
Therefore  Luke  must  have  copied  this  portion  from  Mark, 
and  is  exposed  to  all  the  objections  of  the  law  as  stated 
above,  so  that  neither  Luke's  nor  Mark's  trial  can  be  re- 
ceived as  a  fact. 

This  becomes  still  more  evident  from  the  reply  of  Jesus 
as  reported  by  Luke  :  "  If  I  tell  you,  you  will  not  believe  ; 
and  if  I  also  ask  you,  ye  will  not  answer  me,  nor  let  me  go. 
Hereafter  shall  the  Son  of  man  sit  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  power  of  God/'  It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  how 
Luke  came  to  know  the  first  part  of  this  reply,  which 
none  of  the  other  gospels  has.  He  could  only  have  imag- 
ined, as  he  had  no  extra  reporter  in  that  council.  But  the 
second  part  is  an  improvement  on  Mark.  According  to 
Luke,  Jesus  says  not,  they  will  see  him  come  in  the  clouds 
and  sit  at  God's  right  hand,  because  he  knew  it  was  not 
true,  and  God  has  no  right  hand.  He  made  of  it  "  the 
right  hand  of  the  power  of  God/'  which  phrase  conveys 
no  meaning  whatsoever,  but  it  was  the  best  he  could  make 
of  Mark's  "right  hand  of  power."  The  attempted  im- 
provement leaves  no  doubt  that  Luke  copied  from  Mark, 
that  he  transferred  the  nightly  trial  to  the  morning,  left 
out  the  high-priest  altogether,  changed  the  matter  and 
the  words  to  come  in  part  over  Mark's  errors.  It  is 
again  the  same  case  as  above.  Mark  wrote,  Matthew 
copied,  Luke  amended,  and  John  denied  both  trials, 
mentions  none,  because  he  knew  of  none.  In  the 
face  of  all  the  internal  and  external  arguments  pro- 
duced, no  sensible  reader  will  expect  that  those  trials  ac- 
tually took  place.  We  may  consider  this  point  settled. 
The  only  question  can  be,  When  and  why  was  this  written? 
which  we  can  not  expound  here,  as  it  was  written  at  least 
one  century  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  The  fact  is,  we 
have  no  knowledge  whatever  of  the  fate  of  Jesus,  from 
the  moment  of  his  capture  to  his  appearance  before  Pi- 
late. There  was  no  trial,  no  investigation,  no  conversa- 
tion with  the  high-priest.  The  only  point  in  which  the 
gospels  agree  is,  that  Jesus  was  retained  till  morning  in 
the  court  of  the  high-priest,  under  guard  of  his  captors, 
and  even  this  we  know  on  the  authority  of  Mark  only. 

We  hardly  need  say  that  the  work  of  the  harmonizers 
is  here  in  vain.  If  we  drop  our  arguments  and  adopt 
with  them  two  trials,  one  in  the  night  and  another  in  the 


.U.S1S    BEFORE    PILATE.  81 

morning,  it  makes  the  matter  so  much  the  worse.  All 
blunders  against  law  and  custom  remain  the  same,  and 
the  time  too  short  lor  one  trial  was  certainly  too  short  for 
two.  Mrsides,  Luke's  trial  in  the  morning,  which  must 
have  taken  sonn-  time,  is  plainly  contradicted  l>y  Mark, 
who  maintains  Jesus  was  crucified  at  nine  o'clock  in  the 
morning.  We  discuss  this  point  in  the  next  chapter. 

For  nearly  M>venteeu  centuries  Christians  have  taken 
this  conglomeration  of  contradictions  and  improbabilities 
a>  matter  of  fact,  although  if  met  within  any  other  book 
it  would  have  been  exposed  a  thousand  times.  So  mighty 
is  uninquired  faith,  and  so  easily  it  is  deceived  and  satis- 
tied.  Head  with  the  critic's  eye,  and  nothing  is  left  of  the 
entire  account,  from  the  capture  of  Jesus  to  the  morning 
scene  before  Pilate,  and  this  again  is  partly  spurious,  as 
we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  V. 
JESUS    BEFORE     PILATE. 


The  next  point  in  the  gospel  narrative  is  the  trial  of 
Jesus  before  the  Roman  governor,  Pontius  Pilate,  and 
the  judgment  given  by  that  notorious  dignitary  of  Tiber- 
ins.  The  four  gospels  agree  that  early  in  the  morning 
Jesus  was  delivered  over  to  Pilate;  that  he  was  accused 
of  high  treason  against  Rome,  having  been  proclaimed 
king  of  the  Jews  ;  and  that  in  consequence  thereof  he  was 
condemned  first  to  be  scourged  and  then  to  be  crucified, 
all  of  which  was  done  in  hot  haste.  In  all  other  points 
the  narrative  of  the  four  evangelists  differ  widely,  and  so 
essentially  that  oue  story  can  not  be  made  of  the  four  ac- 
counts; nor  can  any  particular  points  stand  the  test  of 
historical  criticism  and  vindicate  its  substantiality  as  a 
fact.  Let  us  examine  the  points  in  logical  succession. 

I.      THE   TIME. 

According  to  Mark  and  Matthew,  the  chief  priests  in 
the  morning  held  a  secret  council  with  the  elders  of  the 
people,  and  then  delivered  him  up  to  Pilate.  This  secret 
conclave  and  its  transactions  could  not  possibly  have  been 
known  to  Mark  or  Matthew,  and  could  not  have  taken 


°^  THE   TIME. 

place  according  to  Jewish  law  and  custom.  Therefore 
John  has  no  account  of  this  secret  conclave.  It  was  the 
first  day  of  Passover,  according  to  the  Synoptics.  The 
divine  service  in  the  temple  began  "  when  the  east  was 
all  lit,"  i.  e.j  early  in  the  morning,*  when  all  officiating 
priests  were  to  be  at  their  respective  posts,  and  none  of 
them  was  permitted  to  leave  before  the  close  of  the  ser- 
vice.f  Nor  is  it  any  way  probable  that  on  the  first  day  of 
Passover,  when  the  numerous  pilgrims  were  present,  any 
of  the  chief  priests  would  have  deserted  their  respective 
posts. 

But  omit  these  proceedings  and  take  for  granted  with 
John,  that  early  in  the  morning  Jesus  was  transported  by 
his  captors  from  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  to  that  of  the 
governor.  The  Passover  being  about  vernal  equinox,  and 
Jerusalem  near  the  32d  degree,  north  longitude,  six  in  the 
morning  was  certainly  called  early.  Say  Pilate  was  all 
ready  to  receive  and  try  Jesus  at  six  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
and  went  to  business  at  once.  Then  the  whole  trial,  all 
the  conversations  between  Pilate  and  Jesus,  Pilate  and 
his  wife,  Pilate  and  the  priests,  Pilate  and  the  people, 
the  priests  and  the  people,  Jesus  and  Herod,  the  mocking 
by  Herod's  servants,  including  the  walk  from  Caiaphas 
to  Pilate,  from  Pilate  to  Herod  and  back,  three 
times  dressing  and  undressing  Jesus ;  then  the  mock- 
ing scene  in  the  Prsetorium  by  the  Roman  sol- 
diers, the  scourging,  and  the  walk  to  Golgotha — all  this 
variety  of  scenes,  walks,  conversations,  an<i  acts  took  less 
than  three  hours.  "  And  it  was  the  third  hour,  and  they 
crucified  him"  (Mark,  xv.  25).  The  third  hour  means 
nine  in  the  morning.  Is  this  possible?  Is  this  history? 
John  understood  this  mistake  ;  and  as  he  differs  with  the 
Synoptics  in  the  day,  so  also  in  the  hour.  He  maintains 
(xix.  14),  Jesus  was  not  crucified  at  nine  o'clock  in  the 
morning,  but  it  was  nearly  twelve  M.  when  Pilate  closed 
the  trial  scene  at  Gabbatha  by  pronouncing  judgment  over 
Jesus.  But  the  sixth  hour,  or  twelve  at  noon,  aside  of  the 
statement  'of  Mark,  is  also  with  Luke  (xxiii.  44)  and 
with  Matthew  (xxvii.  45)  long  after  the  crucifixion.  In 
point  of  time,  then,  either  John  or  the  Synoptics  have 
chronicled  an  error.  Jesus  could  not  have  been  crucified 

*  Maimonr'es,  Themidim,  i.  2. 
t  Maimonides,  Biath  Hammikdash,  ii.  15. 


JESUS   BEFORE   PILATE.  83 

at  9  A.  M.,  ami  then  again  after  twelve  M.  As  little 
as  the  harmoni/ers  can  press  all  those  events  and  speeches 
into  the  brief  space  of  three  hours,  they  call  unite  the 
diilerent  dates  of  the  Synoptics  and  John. 

II.  THE    PERSONS. 

Mark  narrates  not  who  escorted  Jesus  on  his  way  to 
Pilate.  In-fore  Pilate,  the  chief  priests  aloneappear  as  the 
adv-r.-aries  (xv.  3,  11).  The  people  assembling  after- 
ward before  the  palace,  did  not  come  up  with  Jesus  or  on 
his  account;  the  friends  of  Barabbas,  whom  they  wished 
to  have  released,  form  the  crowd  outside  and  do  all  the 
clamoring.  So  the  only  'persons  appearing  in  this  part  of 
the  drama  are  Pilate  and  the  chief  priests  inside,  and  the 
friends  of  Barabbas  outside.  With  Matthew,  however, 
the  scene  enlarges,  as  legends  naturally  grow;  the  elders 
of  the  people  (xxvii.  12)  are  added  to  the  adversaries  of 
Jesus;  a  woman,  the  wife  of  Pilate,  looms  up  in  the  rear 
with  a  prophetical  dream  concerning  that  righteous  man  ; 
Pilate  performs  a  Jewish  custom,  the  washing  of 
hands,  for  dramatic  effect,  and  a  mad  mob  clamors  out- 
side, "  His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children."  Why 
did  Matthew  add  these  embellishments  to  the  scene  ?  All 
these  additional  persons  and  points  were  evidently  un- 
known to  Mark,  and  not  accredited  by  either  Luke  or 
John.  We  must  investigate  this  point  in  its  proper 
place.  Here  we  must  call  attention  to  the  queries  asked 
and  answered,  which  show  that  not  only  Matthew  but 
also  Luke  and  John  took  their  accounts  from  Mark. 

III.  THE   QUERIES. 

As  far  as  Matthew  and  Mark  agree,  the  trial  before 
Pilate  was  opened  by  the  governor  with  the  question, 
u  Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews  ?"  Jesus  affirmed  this 
without  any  qualification.  Pilate  is  represented  as  hav- 
ing been  fully  informed  of  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  the 
royal  dignity,  as  he  must  naturally  have  been  by  what  had 
transpired  in  Jerusalem.  After  Jesus  had  confessed  his 
pretensions,  his  trial  was  virtually  closed  and  his  doom 
sealed.  Still,  after  this  the  chief  priests,  and  according  to 
Matthew  also  the  elders,  accuse  him  of  other  crimes  not 
specified  in  those  gospels,  to  which  Jesus  made  no  reply. 
This  silence  elicits  Pilate's  surprise  or  admiration,  either 
at  the  equanimity  of  the  accused,  or  his  unwillingness  to 


84  THE  PEBSONS — THE   QUERIES. 

defend  himself,  and  prompts  him  to  save  the  life  of  Jesus. 
While  we  can  not  see  to  what  purpose  any  accusation  was 
advanced  against  Jesus,  after  his  unqualified  confession 
which,  before  the  Roman,  did  condemn  him  to  the  death 
of  a  rebel,  we  can  not  comprehend  how  the  silence  of  Je- 
BUS  could  have  changed  the  acknowledged  fact  or  the  ex- 
isting law,  or  how  it  moved  Pilate  to  compassion  or  ad- 
miration, unless  we  suppose,  to  which  the  sources  entitle 
not,  that  Pilate  took  Jesus  to  be  an  insane  fanatic.  Luke 
and  John  felt  this  point,  and  made  the  attempt  to  set  it 
aright,  in  which  they  failed  entirely.  We  discuss  these 
points  below. 

Meanwhile,  and  accidentally,  a  crowd  assembled  out- 
side (these  two  evangelists  continue),  for  the  avowed  pur- 
pose of  releasing  Barabbas  (Mark,  xv.  8).     It  is  to  them 
that  Pilate  directs  the  question,  "  Will   ye  that  I  release 
unto  you  the  king  of  the  Jews?"  which   Matthew  ex- 
plains to  the  effect  that  either   Barabbas  or  Jesus  should 
be  given  them  (xxvii.  17,  21).     The  people,  persuaded  by 
the  chief  priests,    and    also    by  the   elders,   as  Matthew 
wants  it,  chose  Barabbas.     The  suasion  of  the  chief  priests 
is  evidently  superfluous  in  the  account,  as  the  crowd  had 
come  for  the  very  purpose  of  liberating  Barabbas,  whom 
they  knew  as  the  leader  of  a  popular  rebellion  in  Jeru- 
salem (Luke,  xxiii.  19),  while  the  evangelists  leave  it  al- 
together uncertain  that  any  of  them  knew  much  of  Jesus 
or  his  teachings.  It  is  quite  natural  that  they  should  have 
selected  Barabbas,  as  only  the  choice  between  the  two  had 
been  left  them.     .Next    come   the  two  questions,  "  What 
will  ye  then  that  I  shall  do  unto  him  whom  ye  call  the  king 
of  the  Jews?"  and  when  they  replied,  "  Crucify  him  !"  he 
continues,  "Why,  what  evil    hath  he  done?"  and  they 
clamor  again,  *' Crucify    him!"     This  ends  the  scene,  as 
far  as  the  two  evangelists  agree.     These  three  questions 
are  rather  peculiar.     Pilate  had  heard  of  Jesus,  that  he 
had  been  proclaimed  the  king  of  the  Jews,  and  accusing 
the  people  that  they  called    him  the  king  of  the  Jews, 
still  asks,  "  What  evil  hath  he  done?"     The  people  of 
New  York  proclaim  James  Brown   king  of  New  York, 
and  James  Brown,  placed  before  a  court-martial,  confesses 
to  be  the  king  of  New  York,  and  there  is  none  to  deny 
or  gainsay  it.  Then  the  chief  ot  that  court-martial  asks, 
What  wrong  has  he  done  ?  and  maintains  it  is  on  account 


-TF.SUS    BEFORE     PILATE.  85 

of  the  envy  of  his  enemies  that  James  Brown  is  brought 
to  trial.  There  is  too  much  self-contradiction  in  tins. 
Because  the  people  vociferated,  "  ( YiK-ily  him!"  if  they 
did  so,  therefore  Pilate  ought  to  have  given  up  Jesn 
an  innocent  fanatic,  since  none  acknowledged  his.  royal 
claims.  Pilate  was  not  under  the  power  of  the  people  ; 
they  groaned  under  his  oppression.  Why  then  ask  them— 
why  not  ask  himself — what  that  man  had  done  to  deserve 
death?  The1  situation  is  changed  here  altogether.  The 
tyrant  becomes  subject,  and  the  subject  the  tyrant.  The 
bloodthirsty  and  reckless  Pilate,  all  on  a  sudden,  exper- 
iences a  spasmodic  ieeling  of  righteousness  and  obliging 
politeness  to  the  victims  of  his  bloody  despotism;  and  the 
victims  of  his  villainous  outrages  are  transformed  into  a 
horde  of  ravenous  wolves  against  one  of  their  own  kins- 
men, contrary  to  the  proverbial  affections  of  the  Hebrews 
for  their  own.  John  attempts  to  account  also  for  this 
unnatural  situation,  but  he  is  again  unsuccessful,  as  we 
shall  see  below. 

iv.    LUKE'S  VERSION. 

Luke,  with  these  accounts  before  him,  in  the  first  place 
drops  out  of  the  narrative  the  additions  of  Matthew,  viz., 
the  wife  of  Pilate  and  her  dream,  his  washing  of  the 
hands,  and  the  outsiders7  vociferation.  If  the  passage 
had  been  in  Matthew  when  Luke  wrote,  which  is  doubt- 
ful, he  had  sufficient  reason  to  drop  it.  A  heathen  wo-' 
man  has  a  prophetical  dream,  and  thus  stands  in  connec- 
tion with  the  divine  power.  This  would  have  been  too  im- 
pious for  Luke.  He  could  not  have  accredited  it,  had  he 
seen  it.  The  washing  of  the  hands  as  a  symbolic  act, 
to  denote  a  person's  innocence  in  the  blood  shed  unjustly, 
was  exclusively  Jewish,  and  is  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch 
as  a  divine  command  on  a  certain  occasion  (Dcut.,  xxi). 
Luke  could  not  have  believed  that  the  heathen  Roman,  in 
this  particular  case,  should  have  observed  a  command- 
ment of  the  Jews,  and  perform  a  ceremony  which  must 
have  appeared  ridiculous  to  him.  Therefore  Luke  must 
have  dropped  this  point,  together  with  the  remarks  of 
Pilate,  and  the  vociferation  of  the  people  connected  with 
it.  John  did  the  same  in  these  two  points:  he 
omitted  them.  If  those  two  evangelists  did  not  accredit 
the  additional  points  of  Matthew,  it  can  certainly  not  be 


86  LUKE'S  VERSION. 

expected  of  any  critic  now  to  adopt  them  as  facts.  It 
may  have  appeared  to  Luke  that  Matthew  or  his  inform- 
ant was  mistaken  in  the  wife  of  Pilate.  He  thought 
of  the  wife  of  Felix,  Drusill  i,  who  was  a  Jewess  by 
birth,  and  had  some  notion  to  change  her  religion  a  second 
time  (Acts,  xxiv.  24).  This  mistake  accounts  also  for  the 
second.  The  husband  of  a  Jewess,  though  heathenized, 
may  have  entertained  some  respect  for  Jewish  symbols  ; 
if  it  was  not  brought  in  ibr  the  express  purpose  of  having 
the  Jews  clamor  after  the  blood  of  Jesus,  to  show 
how  magnanimous  the  Roman  and  how  bloodthirsty  the 
Jew  was,  which  is  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  objects  in 
the  gospels  and  Acts. 

Luke  works  the  second  point  in  this  manner.  He 
adopts  the  stately  procession  of  Matthew,  escorting  Jesus 
to  Pilate.  The  governor,  however,  knows  nothing  of  Je- 
sus, has  not  heard  of  his  entry  into  the  city,  his  deport- 
ment in  the  temple,  his  influence  upon  the  people,  or  the 
threatening  rebellion  ;  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes 
must  accuse  him  of  "  perverting  the  nation,  and  forbid- 
ding to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  saying  that  he  himself  is 
Christ,  a  king."  The  middle  part  of  this  accusation  is 
not  true ;  but  it  appears  to  be  intended  that  the  Jews 
state  a  falsehood.  Piiate,  altogether  ignorant  of  the  prec- 
edents of  Jesus,  has  no  confidence  in  the  accusation  and 
asks  Jesus,  "  Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews  ?"  to  which 
he  replies,  "  Thou  sayest  it"  Luke  having  found  this 
question  and  answer  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  repeats  them 
literally;  but  less  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  idiom  than 
his  predecessors,  he  understands  tlv1  phrase  "Thou  sayest 
it,"  not  as  an  unqualified  affirmation,  as  it  was  actually 
understood  by  the  Jews  ;  he  takes  it  literally,  viz.,  li  Thou 
sayest,  I  am  a  king;  I  do  not  say  so,  and  let  Pilate  de- 
clare, I  find  no  fault  in  this  man."  So  he  attempts  an 
explanation  of  the  point,  why  did  Pilate  hold  Jesus  to  be 
innocent  after  his  own  confession  of  guilt,  in  the  main 
point.  Had  he,  however,  understood  the  reply  of  Jesus 
correctly,  he  could  not  have  imagined  for  a  moment  that 
Pilate  found  no  fault  with  a  man  who  maintains  to  be  the 
king  of  a  people  subject  to  Rome.  He  could  certainly 
not  have  discovered  the  innocence  of  Jesus  in  his  reply. 
Having  thus  changed  the  spirit  of  the  scene  by  a  small 
addition  to  the  former  account,  and  a  little  mistake  in  a 


IS     I'.KFUKK    IT  LATE.  87 

few  words,  he  comes  hack  to  his  predecessors  and,  filling 
up  a  vacuum,  as  it  were,  informs  us  of  what  Jesus  was 
especially  accused  by  his  adversaries.  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew did  n«»t  Mate  so,  still  Luke  adds,  that  the  Jews  then 
said  to  Pilate,  "  He  stirreth  up  the  people,  teaching 
through  all  Jewry,  beginning  from  Galilee  to  this  place." 
Like-  the  above  also  these  are  the  words  of  Luke  and  not 
of  the  persons  represented,  because  they  are  not  true.  Je- 
sus did  not  preach  in  Judea,  except  in  Jerusalem.  If  he 
did  stir  up  any  people,  it  was  in  Galilee;  but  not  in  Ju- 
dea. Still  the  very  object  of  Luke  is,  that  the  accusers 
should  say  falsehoods.  Their  chief  priests  and  elders, 
the  very  representatives  of  that  people,  should  approach 
the  governor  with  misrepresentations,  although  it  was  in 
.his  power  and  his  duty  to  investigate  and  to  judge  prop- 
erly, in  order  to  place  the  innocence  of  Jesus  and  the 
magnanimity  of  the  Roman  in  the  best  possible  light. 

Next  Luke  describes  an  entirely  new  scene,  to  which 
none  of  the  other  evangelists  refer.  Having  learned  that 
Jesus  was  from  Galilee,  and  Herod  of  Galilee  being  in  the 
city,  he  sent  Jesus  to  that  prince.  On  the  first  day  of 
Passover,  during  the  hours  of  divine  service  in  the  tem- 
ple, without  notice,  preparation  or  ceremony,  Herod  re- 
ceives a  criminal,  as  Jesus  was  accused  to  be,  and  sits  in 
judgment  over  him  just  for  the  fun  of  the  thing  :  "  Be- 
cause he  had  heard  many  things  of  him,  and  he  hoped  to 
have  seen  some  miracle  done  by  him,"  There  is  no  mor- 
al motive  in  the  account,  as  though  the  life  of  a  man  was 
nothing  to  Herod  and  his  courtiers  ;  no  political  motive, 
none  but  the  childish  desire  to  see  some  miracles  per- 
formed. Luke  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Herodian  char- 
acter. The  Herodian  princes  were  certainly  the  last  to 
care  fora  miracle.  Again  on  the  first  day  of  Passover 
and  during  the  hours  of  divine  service,  the  chief  priests 
and  scribes,  the  heads  oi  the  people,  go  to  Herod  to  accuse 
a  criminal,  while  the  myriads  of  Israel  worship  on 
Mount  Moriah.  Instead  of  investigating  the  case  with 
any  show  of  propriety  or  common  decency,  as  one  would 
expect  of  a  Hebrew  prince  educated  at  the  imperial  court 
of  Rome,  the  servants  and  the  prince  mock  and  insult  the 
prisoner,  clothe  him  in  purple  and  send  him  back  to  Pi- 
late. Jesus,  also,  instead  of  showing  any  respect  to  the 
prince  of  his  people  and  the  representatives  of  his  breth- 


88 

ren,  as  one  is  entitled  to  expect  of  everybody  almost,  is 
silent  as  a  rock,  has  nothing  to  say  either  of  his  inno- 
cence or  their  wickedness,  his  faith  or  their  unbelief. 
Luke  did  certainly  not  expect  that  any  Jewish  reader 
should  believe  a  word  of  this  anecdote.  It  was  intended 
for  simple-minded  heathens  in  the  Syrian  villages,  who 
had  defective  ideas  of  a  prince  and  his  courtiers,  the 
priests  and  representatives  of  a  people,  the  sanctity  of  the 
Passover  among  the  Jews,  the  character  and  dignity  of 
man.  He  intended  to  tell  them  that  Herod  also  acknowl- 
edged the  innocence  of  Jesus,  although  he  was  too  wicked 
,to  do  him  justice,  and  that  the  whole  people  with  all  its 
chiefs  were  guilty  of  the  death  of  Jesus;  and  brought  forth 
a  farce  which  not  even  John  or  any  of  the  apocryphal  wri- 
ters would  accredit.  They  must  have  read  it,  still  they 
took  no  notice. 

Jesus  returning  to  Pilate,  so  Luke  continues,  the  latter 
convoked  a  meeting  of  the  chief  priests,  the  rulers,  and 
the  people,  and  the  large  meeting  was  brought  together 
and  organized  by  magic,  as  it  were,  all  before  nine  in  the 
morning.  It  is  not  the  people  who  had  come  to  the  gov- 
ernor to  ask  the  release  of  Barabbas,  as  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew narrate.  No,  it  is  an  extra  meeting  convened  for  the 
purpose,  of  which  nobody  besides  Luke  knew  anything. 
Pilate,  like  a  vulgar  stump-speaker,  harangues  that  whole 
meeting  and  declares  that  neither  he  nor  Herod  found 
Jesus  guilty  of  any  crime  meriting  the  penalty  of  death. 
He  therefore  proposed  to  chastise  Jesus  and  let  him  go. 
So  he  gets  over  the  awkward  question,  Why  was  Jesus 
scourged?  After  this  whole  intermezzo,  all  before  nine 
o'clock,  of  which  Mark  and  Matthew  were  ignorant,  Luke 
returns  to  their  account,  but  changes  its  entire  character. 
^Noi  the  friends  of  Barabbas,  who  had  come  to  release  him, 
but  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  the  whole  crowd,  priests,  elders, 
rulers,  and  people  vociierate:  not  to  give  them  Barabbas, 
bui  Lk  Away  with  this  man,  but  release  unto  us  Barabbas/' 
so  mat  the  destruction  of  Jesus  is  the  first  thought  in 
their  minds  and  the  release  of  Barabbas  the  second.  Next 
he  reproduces,  by  way  of  circumscription,  the  last  two 
questions  and  answers  as  chronicled  by  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew, the  vociferating  always  done,  not  by  the  friends  of 
Barabbas  misled  by  the  chief  priests,  but  by  the  whole 
crowd. 


JESUS     BEFOKE    PILATE.  89 

None,  -whatever  his  learning,  skill,  or  sagacity  may  he, 
will  '-ver  >ur.  red  in  harmonizing  this  .st«>ry  of  Luke  with 
that  of  Mark,  in  spirit,  persons,  and  events;  or  in  com- 
prehending how  all  this  could  have  taken  place  within 
than  three  hours.  If  Mark  is  right,  th»-  additions  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  arbitrary  and  erroneous,  and  the 
spirit  which  the  latter  imposes  on  the  story  is  malicious. 

Without  any  additional  sources  before  him,  Luke  at- 
tempted to  comment  on  Mark  and  Matthew,  and  to  place 
not  merely  the  chief  priests  and  rulers  in  the  worst  light, 
but  also  the  people  congregated  before  the  gubernatorial 
residence.  >o  that  the  whole  weight  of  the  crime  falls  ujx>n 
the  Jews,  /.  c.,  those  i'ew  who  were  there;  and  Pilate  is 
entirely  exonerated.  The  chief  priests  and  the  rulers 
made  the  accusation,  and  in  connection  with  the  people  as- 
M-mhled  did  all  the  vociferation  ;  but  Pilate  resisted  stead- 
fastly from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  until  he  finally 
yielded  to  the  popular  clamor,  not  to  release  Barabhas, 
which  is  the  main  point  of  the  people  according  to  Mark 
(xv.  15)  and  Matthew  (xxvii.  26),  but  to  crucify  Jesus, 
which  is  the  main  point  with  Luke  (xxiii.  24,  25).  'J  he 
difference  in  the  close  of  the  scene  is  so  strongly  marked 
that  no  attentive  reader  can  be  mistaken  in  the  intention 
of  Luke,  in  changing  the  entire  spirit  of  the  narrative. 
Notwithstanding  his  manifest  desire  to  exonerate  Pilate, 
and  intensify  the  guilt  of  Jesus,  he  did  not  accept  Mat- 
thew's addition  of  Pilate's  wife  and  her  dream,  the  wash- 
ing of  the  hands,  and  the  supposed  vociferation  of  the 
Jews,  "  His  blood  be  on  us,  and  on  our  children  ;"  al- 
though both  fitted  exactly  into  the  spirit  of  the  narrative. 
This  forces  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  two  additional 
points  of  Matthew  were  not  in  his  gospel  at  the  time 
when  Luke  wrote,  and  were  afterward  interpolated  from 
the  apocryphal  gospel  of  Nicodem us,  where  those  two  pas- 
sages are  found,  literally  and  exactly.*  Therefore  we  be- 
lieve to  be  entitled  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  additions  of 
Matthew  resting  on  the  authority  of  an  apocryphal  gospel, 
written  several  centuries  post  fest.um  in  a  country  far  away 
from  the  locality  where  the  affair  transpired,  known  and 
acknowledged  a  spurious  production,  and  intended  as  a 
pious  fraud,  deserve  no  credit,  and  can  not  be  accepted 
by  any  critical  reader  as  possibly  authentic.  The  passage, 

*  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  ii.,  1,  2;  vi.,  20,  21. 


90 

"His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children,"  is  an  imita- 
tion of  David's  curse  pronounced  on  Joab  after  he  had 
killed  Abner  (2  Samuel,  iii.  28,  29). 

v.    JOHN'S  VERSION. 

Both  additions  to  Mark — that  of  Matthew  and  Luke — 
are  dropped  by  John  in  his  presentation  of  the  affair, 
without  affording  the  least  opportunity  to  harmonizers  to 
press  them  in  somewhere  :  as  it  was  evidently  his  inten- 
tion to  give  a  full  and  accurate  description  of  the  entire 
proceedings.  Having  before  him  the  three  versions  of 
the  Synoptics,  and  no  other  sources,  John,  as  much  as 
possible,  attempts  to  expound  them  and  to  overcome  the 
difficulties  they  present.  He  begins  (xviii.  28)  with  a  de- 
nial of  the  trials  before  the  high-priest,  chief  priests,  eld- 
ers and  scribes,  their  consultations  and  resolutions,  be- 
cause he  must  have  seen  the  impossibility  to  save  them  ; 
and  had  Jesus  transported  directly  from  Caiaphas  to  Pi- 
late, right  after  the  crowing  of  the  cock.  He  omits  Mat- 
thew's stately  procession,  and  informs  us  (xix.  6),  that 
"the  Jews"  present  on  the  whole  occasion,  besides  the 
Roman  soldiers,  were  the  very  persons  who  had  captured 
Jesus  and  some  chief  priests.  "  The  chief  priests  and  of- 
ficers," he  states  expressly,  did  all  the  vociferation,  and 
these  officers  may  have  been  priests,  Levites  or  Israelites, 
or  other  hirelings  in  the  high-priest's  employ.  So  there 
was  no  crowd,  no  tumult,  none  of  the  people  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  it,  no  elders  and  no  scribes,  no  Pharisees 
and  no  Zadducees  were  present  before  Pilate's  judgment- 
hall.  John  at  once  exonerates  all  Jews,  except  a  few 
chief  priests  and  servants,  from  participating  in  any  shape 
or  form  in  the  capture,  trial,  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  Ac- 
cording to  this  evangelist's  presentation  of  the  story,  Jesus 
fell  the  victim  of  a  supposed  political  necessity;  hence  he 
was  disposed  of  as  early  and  as  quietly  as  possible,  with- 
out any  knowledge  of  his  friends. 

The  first  difficulty  which  John  met  with  in  the  accounts 
of  the  Synoptics,  was  naturally  this  :  How  could  they 
know  what  was  spoken  or  done  in  the  judgment-hall  of 
Pilate,  where,  beside  him  and  his  officers,  only  the  adversa- 
ries of  Jesus  were  present?  Either  his  adversaries  must 
have  reported  it,  or  official  documents  must  have  pre- 
served it.  In  the  first  case,  the  report  is  unreliable,  as  it 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE.  91 

must  have  appeared  to  the  Synoptics,  who  changed  it  and 
addetl  to  it,  each  in  his  own  way.  In  the  sccoud  place, 
the  (piestion  would  have  suggested  itself,  Where  arc  the 
documents  to  control  the  evangelical  .statements  ?  This  was 
xatious  a  (piestion  to  the  primitive  Christians,  that 
at  the  end  of  the  third  century  a  book  on  the  subject  was 
forced  on  the  name  of  Nicodemus,  the  friend  of  Jesus, 
and  called  "  The  Acts  of  Pontius  Pilate."  The  author  of 
that  hook,  now  called  "The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,"  main- 
tains that  ^Nicodemus,  the  friend  and  disciple  of  Jesus, 
who  was  present  at  the  whole  affair,  described  it  and 
also  the  exploits  of  Christ  in  hell,  his  resurrect  ion  and 
asc.  nsion  to  heaven.  This  gospel,  written  in  Hebrew,  as 
one  added  to  it  in  the  fourth  century,  was  found  by  the 
Emperor  Theodosius,  in  Jerusalem,  in  the  hall  of  Pontius 
Pilate,  among  the1  public  records.  The  aulhor  does  not 
say  it  was  compiled  from  official  records.  Had  any  been 
in  existence,  the  forging  of  a  book  would  have  been  un- 
necessary ;  he  simply  maintains  that  Nicodemus  and  other 
Jews,  1'r  ends  of  Jesus,  witnessed  the  whole  proceedings, 
and  the  former  described  them  in  that  gospel.  It  being 
admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  gospel  of  Nicodemus  was 
a  pious  fraud,  to  silence  opponents,  it  must  also  be  admit- 
ted that  no  documents  of  Pilate  were  known  to  the  Chris- 
tians, which  would  establish  the  facts  of  the  trial  and  cru- 
cifixi-m,  and  that  no  friends  of  Jesus  were  present  in  the 
judgment-hall  to  report  the  proceedings. 

John,  in  the  face  of  these  essential  difficulties,  has  re- 
sort to  a  new  point.  He  says  the  Jews  would  not  go  into 
the  judgment-hall,  "lest  they  should  be  defiled  ;  but  that 
they  might  eat  the  Passover/'  Consequently  Pilate  was 
obliged  to  go  out  to  them.  Outside  of  the  hall  every 
bodv  could  have  heard  what  was  said,  and  have  it  report- 
ed to  the  disciples.  He  leaves  his  readers,  furthermore, 
to  su:»jK)se  that  the  conversation  between  Jesus  and  Pilate 
in  the  judgment-hall,  was  reported  to  those  outside,  by 
Pilate  himself,  when  he  informed  them,  "I  find  in  him  no 
fau.t  Lit  all."  But  this  brings  him  in  conflict  with  the 
Synoptics,  who  maintain  the  Passover  had  been  eaten  the 
cvnin j  before,  and  inform  us  that  the  accusers  of  Jesus 
were  inside  and  the  crowd  outside  that  hall.  Besides, 
John  makes  two  mistakes  in  this  point.  In  the  first  place, 
the  mere  going  into  the  judgment-hall  did  not  make  any 


92  JOHN'S  VERSION. 

body  unclean  at  all,  according  to  Jewish  laws.  And  in  the 
second  place,  if  any  body  should  have  considered  himself 
denied,  a  mere  bath  would  have  sufficed  to  overcome  these 
scruples.  The  law  is  very  explicit  on  this  point,  although 
John  did  nrt  know  it.  Those  only  defiled  by  corporeal 
impurities  were  not  permitted  to  eat  the  Passover  in  due 
season.  Those  defiled  by  contact  with  impure  things, 
also  with  a  carcass  or  an  unclean  animal,  alter  a  simple 
bath  were  permitted  to  eat  of  this  sacrificial  meal.*  Com- 
mon sense  will  suggest  to  every  sensible  man,  that  the 
numerous  pilgrims  from  foreign  countries  could  not  have 
reached  Jerusalem  without  contact  with  heathens.  We 
must  believe  either  the  Synoptics  or  John  was  misinform- 
ed in  thi-3  point;  either  John  or  the  chief  priests  did  not 
know  the  law.  Therefore  we  can  only  look  upon  this 
point  as  an  unsuccessful  attempt  on  the  part  of  John  to 
account  for  the  source  of  information  from  which  he  and 
the  Synoptics  compiled  this  narrative.  This  abortive  at- 
tempt, however,  shows  that  the  evangelists  had  no  better 
sources  at  their  command  than  tradiiions  based  on  hear- 
say, as  enlarged  and  embellished  in  the  century  after  the 
event  had  transpired. 

Next,  John  follows  the  lead  of  Luke,  and  has  the 
Jews  accuse  Jesus  as  a  malefactor,  which  Pilate  receives 
with  displeasure  and  suspicion.  Both  writing  for  Gentile 
Christians,  nothing  could  be  more  important  to  them  than 
the  testimony  of  Pilate  to  the  innocence  of  Jesus,  and  noth- 
ing more  welcome  to.  them  than  an  opportunity  to  expose 
the  wickedness  of  the  Jews.  John  adds  to  Luke's  account, 
that  Pilate  said  to  the  Jews  they  should  take  and  judge 
him  according  to  their  laws  ;  to  which  they  objected,  "It 
is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death/'  This  was 
put  in  rather  childishly.  The  governor  must  have  known 
well  that  the  right  over  life  and  death  had  been  taken 
from  the  Hebrew  people.  John  did  not  think  of  the  turn 
given  to  his  words  by  Nieodemus's  gospel  (jv.  16,  17),  that 
it  was  intended  to  suggest  to  the  Jews  his  opinion  that 
Jesus  should  not  be  put  to  death,  but  merely  u  whipped 
and  sent  away,"  against  which  the  Jews  remonstrated  ; 


noon  nx  ^N1?  *?-o>  WNB>  "D  "?a  w  roo1?  nmje»  «DO  in?  •' 
;un  s^x  nnj  ^pai  ni-V?vi  nn:  nun  DOT  pja  IPNPIB  ^jsc 
y^'r  a-iy^i  *?ni^B»  nnx  vty  pamEM  VaiB  vrn  '•/•>  ova  pa  NXVOI 
Maimonides  Korban  Pesach  Chapter  vi.  1.  noon  TN  'JZJIN 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE.  93 

for  it  is  not  the  penalty  itself,  but  the  mode  of  the  penal- 
ty,  which  John  thinks  was  changed  by  this  refusal  of  the 
Jews;   that  it  be  fulfilled,  he  states,  what  Je,-us  had   said, 
"WHAT  death  he  should  die."      The  Jews  could  not  have 
crucified  him,  according  to  their  laws,  if  they  had  inflicted 
on  him  the  highest   penalty  of  the  law,  since  crucifixion 
was  exclusively  Roman.     John  omits  Luke's  specified  ac- 
cusations by  the  Jews,  and  puts  in  this  new  point,  to  in- 
form us  that,  also  against  the  will  of  Pilate,  Jesus  had  to 
be  crucified,  because  he  had    prophesied  what  death  he 
should    die.     None    of  the   ISynoptics  has    answered  the 
simple  question,  If  the  priests,  elders,  Pharisees,  Jews,  or 
all  of  them  wanted  Jesus  so  badly  out  of  the  way,  why 
did  they  not  have  him  quietly  assassinated  after  he  was  in 
their  power,  and  be  done  at  once  ?     John  understood  this 
difficulty,  and  informs  us,  they  could  not  kill  him,  because 
he  had  prophesied  what  death  he  should  die ;  so  he  could  die 
no  other.     It  was  dire  necessity,  that  the  heathen  symbol 
of  life  and  immortality — the  cross — should  be  brought  to 
honor  among  the  early  Christians,  and  Jesus  had  to  die 
on  the  cross,  in  a  position  unknown  to  the  ancient    Rom- 
ans, even  if  no  Jew  and  no  Roman  had  ever  lived,  accord- 
ing to  John,  simply  because  it  was  so  prophesied.  Know- 
ing the  doctrinal  object  of  John  in  making  this  new  point, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  cause  to  suspect  that  he  con- 
sidered it  a  fact. 

After  this  overture  of  his  own,  John  returns  to  the 
Synoptics,  and  Pilate  asks  Jesus,  "Art  thou  the  king  of 
the  Jews?"  In  place  of  the  simple  answer  recorded  by 
the  Synoptics,  "Thou  sayest  it,"  Jesus  asks  a  question 
in  return,  receives  an  answer,  is  asked  again,  and  then 
gives  a  theological  definition  of  his  kingdom  of  heaven  in 
the  spiritual  sense  of  Paul,  until  finally  Pilate  asks  again 
whether  Jesus  was  a  king,  to  which  he  replies,  "Thou 
sayest  it:  I  am  a  king,"  which  he  further  explains  in  the 
sense  of  John,  so  that  none  will  deny  him  the  authorship 
of  the  entire  passage,  down  to  the  question  of  Pilate, 
"What  is  truth?"  We  can  well  imagine  why  John  add- 
ed to  the  answer  of  Jesus,  "Thou  sayest  it :  I  am  a  king." 
Luke's  mistake  in  this  reply  has  been  noticed.  John's 
addition  is  intended  simply  to  correct  Luke.  But  we  can 
not  imagine  where  John  learned  the  additional  conver- 
sation between  Jesus  and  Pilate ;  or  how  he  came  to  the  be- 


94  JOHN'S  VERSION. 

lief  that  the  haughty  and  despotic  favorite  of  Sejan  would 
permit  a  captive  to  catechize  him.  If,  however,  all  this 
could  be  imagined,  nobody  is  able  to  see  how  Jesus  could 
have  expounded  his  title  and  mission  in  the  sense  of  Paul, 
who  was  the  author  of -the  Son-of-God  doctrine  and  the 
theological  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  expressed  in  the  words 
"My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  Still,  if  we  could 
imagine  all  this,  we  could  not  see  what  good  this  de Cense 
could  have  done  Jesus  before  a  Roman  who  had  not  the 
remotest  idea  of  a  theological  kingdom  of  heaven.  And 
yet,  by  this  peculiar  defense  John  intended  to  explain 
why  the  first  Synoptics  say  Pilate  was  in  favor  of  Jesus 
also,  after  he  had  confessed  to  be  the  king  of  the  Jews. 
To  a  defense  of  this  kind  Pilate  would  have  replied,  that 
every  agitator  and  pretender,  failing  in  his  revolutionary 
attempts,  might  resort  to  the  same  plea  exactly — a  plea  not 
recognized  by  the  laws  of  Rome.  He  could  have  replied, 
the  servants  of  Jesus  did  not  defend  him,  because  it  was 
not  in  their  power  to  resist  successfully  the  government, 
or  because  they  were  cowards,  or  because  they  were  not 
armed.  Any  of  these  replies  would  do,  although  none 
was  necessary,  as  neither  the  law  of  Rome  nor  any  body 
else  at  that  time  recognized  a  theological  kingdom  ot 
heaven;  a  king  without  a  land  and  a  country  without  a 
soil ;  freedom  and  law  in  heaven,  oppression  and  slavery 
on  earth  ;  misery  and  suffering  here,  to  acquire  bliss  in 
the  next  state  of  existence.  Neither  Jesus  nor  his  im- 
mediate apostles  ever  advanced  anything  like  it. 

The  substance  of  John's  addition  to  the  Synoptics7  nar- 
rative in  this  point  is  the  attempt  to  explain  their  peculiar 
statement,  viz.,  that  Pilate  was  in  favor  of  Jesus  after  he 
had  confessed  to  be  the  king  of  the  Jews — on  dogmatical 
grounds,  which  originated  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  Luke 
overcame  this  difficulty  by  a  mistake  which  John  cor- 
rected. It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  Luke  and  John  felt 
the  difficulty  of  the  point  in  question,  and  had  no  means 
to  adjust  it. 

After  John  has  introduced  Barabbas,  exactly  in  the 
same  spirit  as  Luke,  and  at  variance  with  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew, he  informs  us  that  Pilate  had  Jesus  scourged,  the 
soldiers  put  a  crown  of  thorns  on  his  head,  dressed  him  in 
the  purple  robe,  smote  him  with  their  hands,  and  said, 
"Hail,  king  of  the  Jews !"  With  the  Synoptics,  this  is 


jKsrs  BKFOKK    riLATi:.  95 

the  end  of  the  painful  scene.  The  walk  to  Golgotha  fol- 
lows it  immediately.  Not  so  with  John.  He  narrates, 
alter  the  scourging  and  mocking  rei>eiited  attemj)ts  of 
Pilate  to  save  Jons.  What  was  John's  ohject  with  this 

•  nd  addition  to  the   narrative  of  the   Synoptics?     If 
it  was  to  bring  in  the  Son-of-God  doctrine,  and  the    fear 
of  Pilate  on  hearing  it   (xix.  7,  8),  in  order  to   convince 
his  readers  that    Pilate  received  it  with  a  holy  awe,  while 
ihe  Jews  rejected  it,  he  might  have  done  it  before,  with- 
out contradicting  the    account  of  the  Synoptics.     Pilate 
had  Jesus  scourged  and  mocked,  and  then  in  this  humbled 
and  sullering  condition  exposed  him  to  the  chief  priests, 
in  order  to  move  them  to  pity,  which   those  fanatic  bar- 
barians did  not  feel  after  all,  and  forced  Pilate  to  crucify 
their  victim.     It  sounds  strange,  that  among  all  the  chief 
priests  and    servants  assembled,  there  was  none,  not  one, 
like  Pilate,  compassionate,  whose  heartless  despotism  is  so 
well  known  ;  not  one  as  humane  as  the  Roman  who  had 
massacred    thousands  in  cold    blood.     This  is   about  as 
natural  as  the  kiss  of  Judas,  and  as  likely  as  the  miracu- 
lous conception.     The  strangest,  probably,  in  this  matter 
is,  that  Luke,  who  evidently  did  all  in  his   power  to  in- 
tensify the  guilt  of  the  Jews  and  exonerate  the  Roman ; 
and  Matthew,  whose  last  addition  has  the  same  object  in 
view,  should  not  have  known  this  second  addition  of  John 
fitting  so  exactly  into  the  spirit  of  their  respective  stories; 
if  not,  some  readers  should  consider  it  strangest  that  the 
author  of  the  gospel  of  Nicodemns,  who  compiles  all  sorts 
of  accounts  in  this  affair,  and  had  also  John's  version  be- 
fore his  eyes,  makes  no  mention  of  this  second  addition  of 
John,  not  even  that  Jesus  was  scourged  or  mocked.  This 
amounts  almost  to  positive  evidence  that  the  passage  was 
not  in    John's  narrative   when  the  gospel  of  Nicodemus 
was  written,  or  that  being  there  it  was  discredited.    Any- 
how, before  John,  alter  him,  and  outside  of  his  gospel, 
there  exists  no  evidence  that  his  second  addition  is  a  re- 
cord of  fact. 

But  whoever  was  the  author  of  the  passage,  what 
caused  him  to  write  it?  There  is  another  point  in  the 
narrative  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  ignored  by  Luke  and 
>ucodenius,  which  John  had  to  bring  in  ;  and  this  point 
is  the  scourge  which,  the  first  evangelists  affirm,  was  ap- 
plied to  Jesus  before  the  crucifixion.  This  is  contrary  to 


Jewish  law,  which  permits  no  two  punishments  to  be  in- 
flicted on  one  person.*  In  the  case  of  two  crimes  proved 
on  one  convict,  the  punishment  for  the  lesser  crime  must 
be  remitted  by  the  infliction  of  the  other.f  None  con- 
demned to  death  could  have  been  scourged  after  his  con- 
viction by  Jewish  law.  The  penalty  of  crucifixion,  ac- 
cording to  Roman  law  and  custom,  was  inflicted  on  slaves, 
and  in  the  provinces  on  rebels  only.  The  highest  penalty 
of  the  law  inflicted  on  slaves,  was  to  be  scourged  first  and 
then  crucified. J  The  label  or  inscription  on  the  breast, 
intimating  the  crime,  was  usual  in  Rome.§ 

These  facts  suggest  a  few  questions  which  Luke  and 
John  could  not  have  overlooked.  If  Pilate,  indeed,  be- 
friended Jesus  and  really  wished  to  save  him,  as  Mark 
advances,  and  the  other  evangelists  down  to  Nicodemus 
repeat,  why  did  he  not  do  it  ?  There  is  no  precedent  in 
Jewish  history  that  the  people  resorted  to  rebellion,  or 
preferred  charges  against  any  ruler,  because  he  pardoned 
a  supposed  or  real  criminal.  In  this  case,  especially,  when 
but  yesterday,  as  it  were,  the  multitude  listened  with  de- 
light to  Jesus,  and  clamored  "Hosannah  !"  which  Pilate 
could  not  help  knowing,  there  was  certainly  no  danger  in 
dismissing  him  or  sending  him  away  somewhere  outside 
of  the  reach  of  his  adversaries.  As  regards  the  probability 
of  charges  which  might  have  been  preferred  by  the  Jew- 
ish rulers,  in  case  of  disregarding  their  will,  it  is  certain- 
ly absurd  to  believe  that  a  governor  of  a  province  should 
dread  the  consequences  of  an  act  of  humanity,  if  his  re- 
cord is  as  full  ot  blood  and  violence  as  that  of  Pilate,  and 
especially  in  this  particular  case,  without  any  demonstra- 
tion of  violence  or  actual  resistance  having  taken  place. 
No  Roman  governor  of  Judea  was  removed,  reprimanded, 
or  any  way  molested  for  any  act  of  humanity.  The  conduct 
of  Pilate,  according  to  the  gospel,  is  so  entirely  averse  to 
his  character,  as  described  by  Josephus  and  Philo,  that  it 
is  incredible  on  this  ground  alone. 


*  The  formula  is — o*?e>ni  np^  mNf%N  PD1  nP1<?  cnxpN— "None 
shall  be  scourged  and  put  to  death — none  shall  be  scourged 
and  pay." 

t  This  formula  reads  —  -JD  nava  m1?  y*p — "The  lesser  punish- 
ment is  set  aside  by  the  greater.'' 

J  Pliny,  Epistle  x.  40.  "Sub  furca  caesi"— "In  crucem  acti 
sunt." 

g  Adam's  Roman  Antiquities— Dean's  1842  edition,  p.  181. 


IS    HKKORE    PILATE.  97 

Tlui  next  question  is  tin's.  I  f  Pilate,  contrary  to  his  gen- 
eral character,  and  in  violation  of  his  conviction.-,  without 
refcrencr  to  precedents  and  probabilities,  was  weak  and 
foolish  enough  (o  yield  to  a  clamoring  crowd,  and  to  sacri- 
fice an  innocent  man  to  the  momentary  passions  of  a  fac- 
tion, in  spite  of  another  and  certainly  more  numerous  class, 
why  did  he  impose  upon  him  the  very  worst  and  most 
cruel  punishment  of  the  Roman  law — crucifixion,  when  it 
was  absolutely  in  his  power  to  avoid  it?  The  evangelists 
attempt  to  come  out  of  this  dilemma  by  the  assumed  fact, 
that  the  crowd  vociferated,  "Crucify  him  !"  This  may 
have  been  put  into  the  narrative;  and,  to  our  mind,  there 
is  no  doubt  it  has  been  put  in  for  the  very  purpose  of  har- 
monizing the  two  opposite  allegations — that  Pilate  be- 
friended Jesus  and  still  had  him  crucified.  Was  that 
proud  and  heartless  Roman  such  a  slave  of  a  clamoring 
crowd,  that  he  lacked  the  courage  of  deviating  from 
its  dictation  ?  History  has  no  precedent  and  DO  parallel 
to  these  proceedings.  There  was  certainly  no  cause  of  ap- 
prehension in  the  change  of  the  punishment  from  crucifix- 
ion to  a  more  humane  execution,  especially  as  crucifixion, 
contrary  to  Jewish  law,  must  have  been  an  abomination 
to  the  Jews.  This  question  falls  with  special  weight  on 
Mark  and  Matthew,  who  have  all  the  clamoring  done, 
not  by  the  enemies  of  Jesus  but  by  the  friends  of  Barabbas. 
It  could  certainly  exercise  no  influence  on  Pilate,  whether 
they  cried  or  cried  not,  "Crucify  him  !"  The  alternative 
left  in  this  case  is,  either  Pilate  did  not  befriend  or 
not  crucify  Jesus. 

The  third  question  is  still  more  fatal  to  the  evangelical 
account.  If  Pilate,  in  obedience  to  the  clamoring  crowd 
and  in  violation  of  his  better  convictions,  ordered  the  cru- 
cifixion of  Jesus,why  did  he  enforce  upon  him  the  sever- 
est penalty  of  the  law,  inflicted  in  exceptional  cases  on 
slaves  only?  Why  did  he,  in  defiance  of  the  Jewish  law, 
have  Jesus  scourged  before  crucifixion,  which  the  clamor- 
ing crowd  did  not  demand,  and  for  which  no  imaginable 
necessity  existed?  If  Jesus  was  crucified  at  all,  the 
scourging  preceding  it  must  have  been  very  barbarous,  for 
he  died  after  a  few  hours  on  the  cross  (three,  according  to 
John),  while  others  were  hanging  sometimes  for  days  be- 
fore expiring.  This  was  the  most  troublesome  question 
to  Luke  and  John.  Mark  (xv.  15)  and  Matthew  (xxvii. 


98  A  RESUME. 

26)  state  positively  that,  on  command  of  Pilate,  Jesus  was 
first  scourged  and  then  handed  over  to  the  soldiers  for 
crucifixion.  Luke  seeing  the  gross  contradiction  in  the  al- 
leged friendship  of  Pilate  and  his  treatment  of  Jesus,  main- 
tains that  Pilate  only  proposed  to  scourge  Jesus  and  set 
him  free  (xxiii.  22);  the  Jews  not  being  satisfied,  Pilate 
not  only  did  not  have  Jesus  scourged,  but  did  not  give 
him  over  to  the  soldiers  to  be  crucified  :  he  merely  aban- 
doned him  to  the  fury  of  the  Jews  (xxiii.  25).  So  Luke 
has  an  entirely  new  story  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end,  with  the  manifest  objects  in  view,  to  overcome  the 
contradictions  and  inconsistencies  of  Mark  and  Matthew, 
to  intensify  the  crime  of  the  Jews,  to  exonerate  Piiate 
entirely  and  consistently,  to  have  the  innocence  of  Jesus 
acknowledged  by  both  Pilate  and  Herod. 

As  Luke  transcribed  the  story  of  his  predecessors  and 
added  his  commentaries  to  suit  his  purposes,  so  John 
again  transcribed  Luke's  story  and  added  his  comment- 
aries to  it.  But  the  scourging  was  too  positively  main- 
tained by  Mark  and  Matthew  to  be  omitted.  John  ad- 
mitting it,  on  a  hint  of  Luke,  used  it  to  suit  his  purpose. 
Luke  merely  says,  Pilate  proposed  to  scourge  Jesus  and 
then  let  him  free,  to  which  the  populace  objected  and  the 
scourging  was  not  inflicted.  John  turns  the  proposition 
into  a  fact,  has  Jesus  scourged,  then  exposed  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  Pilate  appeals  again  for  him  and  again  in  vain. 
This  is  the  object  of  John's  second  addition  to  the  story 
of  the  Synoptics.  He  attempted  to  harmonize  the  scourg- 
ing of  Jesus  with  the  alleged  friendship  of  Pilate.  Who- 
ever wrote  that  part  of  John's  story,  this  and  nothing 
else  could  have  been  his  object. 

VI.      A    RESUME. 

Recapitulating  what  has  been  developed  in  this  chap- 
ter we  may  safely  assert  the  following  points  : 

1.  Mark  contains  the  only  source  of  this  story,  which 
was  literally  copied  by  Matthew. 

2.  The  additions  in  Matthew  were  not  in  that  gospel 
when    Luke  and  John  wrote  theirs,  and  appear  to  have 
been  taken  later  from  the  gospel  of  JSicodemus. 

3.  The  contradictions  in  the  account  of  Mark    and 
Matthew  are  (a)  that  Pilate,  after  Jesus  had  confessed  to  be 
the  king  of  the  Jews,  should  have  attempted  to  save  him  ; 


RKFOIIK  PIT. ATI-:.  99 

(b)  that  he  who  was  a  noted  and  reckless  despot  should 
have  submitted  to  the  clamors  of  a  passionate  multitude, 
contrary  to  his  better  conviction  ;  (<•)  that  the  alleged  fact 
of  Pilate's  friendship  lor  .Jesus  stands  in  uncompromis- 
ing contradiction  with  the  crucifixion,  and  especially  with 
the  scourging  of  Jesus. 

4.  Luke,    without  being    in    possession  of  any    new 
sources,  changed  the  story   (a)  to  harmonize  the    above 
contradictions;  (b)  to  intensity  the  guilt  of  the  Jews;  (c) 
to  exonerate  Pilate  and  the  Roman  soldiers;  (d)  to  have 
the  innocence  of  Jesus  established,  not  only  by  Pilate  but 
also  by  Herod. 

5.  "Luke's  addition  of  sending  Jesus  also  to  Herod  was 
either  not  in  that  gospel  when  John  and  Nicodemus  wrote 
theirs,  or  it  was  there  and  considered  spurious  by  them. 

6.  John  like  Luke  was  not  in  possession  of  any  ad- 
ditional sources.     Commenting  on  Mark's  record  of  the 
event  he  adopted  the  spirit  and  method  of  Luke  to  the 
same  purpose,  and  added  such  commentaries  of  his  own 
as,  in  his  opinion,  would  harmonize  the  contradictions  in 
Mark's  accounts,  and  at  the  same  time  hint  that  the  notices 
could  have  been  collected  on  the  spot. 

7.  With  the  exception  of  two   sentences   (xviii.    31; 
xix.  12)  in  John's  additions,  there  is  no  proof  on  record 
that  they  were  known  or   believed   before   or  after  John 
wrote,  up  to  the  end  of  the  third  century,  when  the  gospel 
of  Nicodemus  was  written,  and  incorporated  those  two  sen- 
tences in  part  only  (Nicodemus  iii.  1  ;  vi.  8) ;  or  that  John 
actually  wrote  them. 

This  leads  us  back  to  Mark  with  the  result,  either  Jesus 
was  not  scourged  and  crucified,  or  the  alleged  friendship  of 
Pilate  and  his  attempt  to  save  Jesus  is  not  true.  Both  of 
them,  can  not  be  true.  If  it  is  not  true  that  Jesus  was 
scourged  and  crucified,  then  the  whole  story  is  a  dogmatic 
legend  written  for  the  purpose  either  of  dramatic  effect  in 
the  religious  mysteries,  or  of  vilifying  the  Jews  and  flatter- 
ing the  Romans,  on  account  of  the  political  situation  in 
the  time  of  Hadrian,  a  point  which  we  must  discuss  in 
the  next  chapter.  If  Jesus  was  scourged  and  crucified  by 
command  of  Pontius  Pilate,  then  all  after  the  first  query, 
"Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews  ?"  and  the  first  reply, 
"  Thou  sayest  it/'  is  fictitious,  and  was  invented  for  any 
of  the  above  purposes.  But  only  in  this  latter  case  it  is 


100  THE   SYMBOL    OF   THE    CROSS. 

possible  that  the  crucifixion  took  place  at  nine  in  the  morn- 
ing, as  Mark  says,  and  that  Jesus  expired  on  the  cross 
after  a  few  hours,  being  nearly  dead  from  scourging  be- 
fore he  was  crucified.  The  question  must  be  thoroughly 
investigated  before  we  can  arrive  at  a  final  decision. 
Therefore  we  postpone  it  to  our  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    CRUCIFIXION. 

Outside  of  the  New  Testament  there  exists  no  evidence 
whatever,  in  book,  inscription,  monument,  or  coin,  that 
Jesus  was  either  scourged  or  crucified.  Not  even  the 
catacombs  of  Rome  offer  the  slightest  evidence  to  estab- 
lish this  fact.  Tacitus  states  in  a  very  dubious  passage 
that  Jesus  '"'suffered"  under  Pilate,  but  he  says  not  what. 
Crucifixion  is  not  mentioned  or  even  hinted  at.  Josephus, 
Plinius,  Philo,  and  all  their  cotemporaries  never  refer  to 
the  fact  of  crucifixion  or  any  belief  thereof.  In  the  Tal- 
mud Jesus  is  not  referred  to  as  the  crucified  one,  but  as 

the  hanged  one  (>V?rO>  while  elsewhere  it  is  narrated  he 
was  stoned  to  death,  so  that  it  is  evident  they  were  igno- 
rant of  the  manner  of  death  which  he  suffered.  Still 
none  maintains  he  was  crucified.  The  fact  that  Paul 
(1  Cor.,  xvii.  23)  places  such  stress  on  his  teaching  "Christ 
crucified,"  may  be  taken  as  a  proof  that  the  crucifixion 
was  denied  by  other  teachers  of  the  Gospel,  as  it  actually 
was  by  a  sect  in  the  apostolic  age, 

I.      THE   SYMBOL    OF   THE   CROSS. 

There  are  a  number  of  arguments  in  favor  of  the  alle- 
gation that  the  early  Christian  teachers  adopted  the  cross 
and  the  crucifixion  story  on  account  of  the  cross,  for  dog- 
matic purposes;  and  one  of  those  arguments  is  the  sym- 
bolic signification  of  the  cross  in  pre-christian  times.  It 
is  well  known  that  the  cross  was  the  symbol  of  life  and 
eternity  long  before  the  Christian  story  transpired.  The 
oldest  proof  thereto  is  in  Ezekiel  (ix.  4,  6).  In  this 
chapter,  Ezekiel  narrates  a  vision  he  had  of  the  punish- 
ment to  be  visited  on  the  Hebrew  worshipers  of  pagan 
deities.  Among  the  destroyers  called  to  execute  the  will 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  101 

of  God,  there  is  one  scribe   who   is  commanded  to  mark 

the  innocent  and  opprc.-.-ed  in  .Jerusalem  by  setting  the 
letter  Ttiv  upon  their  foreheads,  and  those  thus  marked 
shall  be  saved,  the  <>th<  rs  .shall  be  slain.  The  words 

ID  rvinm  J'<^M'''M"  ra»  are  rendered,  uAnd  thou  shalt 
set  a  si«rn,"  but  the  verb  without  the  noun  Tar  Minifies 
the  >ame  (1  {Samuel,  xxi.  14),  so  that  the  noun  Tav  is 
added  to  show  the  peculiar  sign  to  be  made.  Tav  is  the 
last  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  In  the  ancient  He- 
brew, as  in  use  in  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  the  Tav  was  a 
plain  cross  -|-  or  X,  as  in  the  original  Egyptian  hiero- 
glyphics. From  this  upright  cross  of  the  Egyptians  and 
11(  brews,  the  Greeks  made  T,  which  was  Latinized.* 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  cross  as  the  symbol  of  life  and 
eternity,  about  600  B.  c.,  popularly  known.  The  goddess 
Anuka,  found  in  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  in  America,  was 
represented,  as  Layard  informs  us,  on  his  Hophra- table 
by  the  ansated  cross  f. 

Robert  Taylor,  in  his  Diegesis  (chapter  xxix.),  has 
compiled  the  sources  to  prove — which  also  Mr.  Skelton,  in 
his  Appeal  to  Common  Sense,  page  45,  and  many  other 
authorities  have  taken  to  oe  fact — thatthe  symbol  of  the 
cross  was  sacred  among  Indians,  Egyptians,  Pruenicians, 
and  Arabs,  long  before  the  origin  of  Christianity.  Mi- 
nucius  Felix,  in  his  Octavius,-\  written  in  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century,  hints  broadly  how  crucifixion  be- 
came a  Christian  symbol.  In  his  apology  of  the  adora- 
tion of  the  crosses,  charged  on  Christians  by  the  hea- 
thens, he  says  to  them  :  "  What  else1  are  your  ensigns,  flags, 
and  standards,  but  crosses  gilt  and  beautified?  Your 
victorious  trophies  not  only  represent  a  simple  cross,  but 
a  cross  with  a  man  upon  it.  .  .  .  When  a  pure  worshiper 
adores  the  true  God,  with  hands  extended,  he  makes  the 
same  figure.7'  As  soon  as  it  had  become  customary 
among  the  Romans  in  foreign  countries  to  crucity  their 
rncmies,  the  man  on  the  cross  was  natural  among  the  vic- 
torious trophies,  to  represent  Rome's  superiority  over  her 
enemies.  rJ  he  church  in  Rome  eimply  adopted  this  Ro- 
man symbol  of  victory  over  her  enemies.  All  this  is  as 

the  coins  of  Simon,  the  Asmonean  prince,  in  De.Saulcy  ; 
Dr.  M.  A.  Levy's  Jnedische Muenzen  ;  the  alphabets  in  J.ajister's 
Hebrew  Lexicon  and  Grammar;  the  alphabet*  iii  Webster's  Dic- 
tionary. 
t  Reeves'  "  Apologies  of  the  Fathers,"  Vol.  I.,  page  139. 


102  THE   SYMBOL  OF   THE   CROSS. 

likely  and  demonstrable  as  the   allegation  that  Jesus  was 
crucified,  for  which  there  is  no  proof  outside  of  the  New 
Testament.     The  matter  was  so   uncertain,   indeed,  that 
the  various  copies    of  the    gospel    of   Nicodemus   differ 
widely  on  this   point.     In    the    first   manuscript  of  the 
Tischendorf  collection*   (chapter   ix.),  Pilate   says  in  his 
verdict  to  Jesus,  *'  I  have  declared  that  thou  shalt  first  be 
scourged  after  the  custom  of  the  pious  kings,  and  then  be 
fastened  upon  the  cross    in  the  garden    where  thou  wast 
taken."     Here  Golgotha  is  omitted  and  the  crucifixion  is 
supposed   to  have  taken  place  at  Gethsemane.     In   the 
same  gospel  (chap,  xvi.),  Annas  and  Caiaphas  narrate  that 
they  had  seen  the  soldiers  put  a  crown  of  thorns  on  the 
head  of  Jesus,  that  he  was  scourged  and  then  crucified  on 
Calvary.     In  the  second   manuscript  of  the  same  gospel, 
the  sentence  of  Pilate  is  changed  thus  (chap,  ix.)  :  "  There- 
lore  I  ordain  that  they  first  smite  thee   with  a  rod,  forty 
stripes,  as  the  laws  of  the    kings  ordain ;  and  that  they 
mock  thee  ;  and  lastly,  that  they  crucify  thee."     Here  the 
place  ot  crucifixion   is  omitted   entirely,   and  the  Roman 
scourging  is  relapsed  by  the  Jewish  Malkoth.     It  appears 
that  among  other  reasons  for   forging  this  gospel,  there 
was  also  this,  that  Annas  and   Caiaphas  testily  that  Jesus 
had  been  scourged  and   crucified,  because  doubts  existed 
that  either  was  the  case.     At  any  rate,   it  is  a  matter  of 
surprise  that  the  author  or  authors  of  those  various  man- 
uscripts should  have  differed   so   widely  from  the  canoni- 
cal gospels  in  this  particular  point,  and  the  trial  of  .Jesus 
before  Pilate,  if  the  matter  as  narrated  in  the  gospels  had 
been  considered   historical.     It  is   not  a  growing  myth; 
it  is  an  entirely  different  story  which  the  apocryphal  gos- 
pels narrate.     Why  should  any  man  have  changed  facts 
in  a  sacred  story,  unless  they    had   been  supposed  legen- 
dary ? 

In  connection  with  this  wavering  uncertainty,  it  must 
be  considered  that  the  story  as  it  is  told  on  from  book  to 
book,  always  more  and  more  betrays  the  tendency  and  ob- 
ject of  its  first  narrator.  In  Mark,  the  Jews  only  claim 
Barabbas,  and  all  their  wickedness  consists,  first,  in  not 
claiming  Jesus,  and  second  in  crying  "  Crucify  him  !"  In 
Matthew,  by  the  last  addition,  the  crime  of  the  Jews  be- 
comes still  worse  by  their  crying,  "His  blood  be  on  us," 


B.  Harris  Cowper's  Apocryphal  Gospels. 


THE    CUUCIFIXION.  103 

etC.J  so  they  declare  the  d  smiction  of  Jesus  no  crime. 
Still  worse  the  matter  ^rows  in  Luke.  The  Jews  as  a 
body,  together  with  their  entire  representatives,  Herod 
included,  commit  the  whole  crime  •  the  accusation  con- 
demnation, mocking,  etc.,  and  Pilate  with  his  soldi  era, 
are  entirelv  exonerated.  Worse  than  this  is  the  story  in 
John,  in  which  the  Jews  have  no  pity  on  Jesus  when, 
scourged  and  bleeding  from  many  sears,  he  was  expos*  d 
to  their  mercy.  In  Ricodemus,  the  Jews  also  do  the 
-  -.  .urging,  replaced  by  the  Malkuth ;  and  in  the  story  of 
Joseph  of  Armithea,  the  Romans  have  nothing  at  all  to 
do  with  the  matter;  the  Jews  do  the  whole.  Turn  the 
pyramidal  succession  of  the  stories,  and  you  have  the 
simple  fact  that  the  crucifixion  story,  like  the  symbol  of 
the  crucifix  itself,  came  from  abroad,  and  was  told  with 
the  avowed  intention  of  exonerating  the  Romans  and  in- 
criminating the  Jews.  Mark  writing  among  Jews,  shyly 
narrated  it  with  all  its  gross  contradictions ;  but  as  the 
story  was  told  on,  outside  of  the  Jewish  circles,  it  devel- 
oped its  original  intent  and  purpose  fully,  to  the  very  ex- 
tent of  self-destruction. 

II.      CAUSE   OF   THE   STORY. 

The  question  might  be  proposed,  Why  should  Mark 
have  adopted  these  stories,  so  hostile  to  the  Jews,  if  they 
were  not  based  on  fact;  and  if  pure  inventions,  why 
should  the  Christians  of  Palestine  have  believed  them? 
It  is  not  difficult  to  explain  this  matter.  The  Jewish 
rabbi  of  Nazareth  in  Galilee,  executed  as  a  rebel  by  a 
Roman  governor,  would  have  been  a  very  poor  orna- 
ment on  the  heathen  cross,  in  the  estimation  of  any 
Greek  or  Roman.  They  thought  much  more  of  their 
law  and  the  high  dignitaries  of  Rome,  than  of  a  Jewish 
rebel.  Among  the  Syrians,  the  Jew  and  his  law,  ever 
since  the  time  of  Maccabees,  were  objects  of  hatred  and 
prejudice,  so  that  even  Tacitus  would  credit  the  absurd 
story  coming  from  Syria,  that  the  Jews  worshiped  an  ass, 
and  kept  one  in  the  sanctum  sanctorum.*  The  prefer- 
ence and  privileges  which  the  Jews  of  Egypt  enjoyed  for 
so  many  centuries,  and  their  superiority  in  wealth  and  in- 
telligence over  the  native  Egyptian,  as  Hengstenberg,  in 
the  appendix  to  his  works  on  Egypt  states,  accounts  for 

*  Tacitus :  History,  Book  V, 


104  CAUSE   OF   THE   STORY. 

the  scandals  and  the  wrath  of  the  Egyptians  against  the 
Jews.  The  Romans  especially,  who  hated  the  valor,  pat- 
riotism, and  religious  fidelity  of  the  Jews,  could  not  possi- 
bly love  them.  Besides,  the  monotheistic  Jew,  who  de- 
clared all  the  creeds  and  rites  of  the  heathens  abomina- 
tions, their  gods  gross  fictions,  and  their  priests  i  in  pos- 
ters, were  naturally  hated  by  the  heathens,  as  they  were 
by  the  Christians  in  after-times,  on  account  of  denying  the 
Trinity,  the  gospel  story,  and  the  whole  fabric  of  Chris- 
tian salvation.  Errors  in  religion  were  always  connected 
with  fanaticism,  hatred,  and  relentless  persecution.  The 
Romans  called  the  Jews  atheists,  because  they  would  not 
believe  in  the  gods,  and  ridiculed  them  as  a  people  of  id- 
lers, because  they  kept  a  Sabbath  every  seventh  day. 

This  antagonism  of  the  heathens  against  the  Jews, 
their  laws  and  their  religion,  was  connected  with  con- 
tempt, after  the  Romans  had  politically  annihilated  them. 
Vanquished  nations,  whatever  their  patriotism  and  he- 
roism may  have  been,  were  always  objects  of  contempt  to 
the  conquerors,  imbeciles,  superstitious  and  thoughtless 
masses.  To  all  this  there  came  the  violent  hatred  of  the 
Romans  against  the  unyielding  and  uncompromising 
Jews,  who  for  two  successive  centuries  bade  defiance  to 
Rome's  huge  power  and  reckless  cunningness.  This  state 
of  feeling  reached  its  climax  in  the  years  between  65  and 
130  A.  c.,  just  when  Christianity  assumed  the  form  which 
is  stereotyped  in  the  gospels.  This  accounts  in  part  for 
the  hostile  spirit  against  the  Jews  manifested  by  the  evan- 
gelists. 

Another  fact  is  this.  Just  at  that  period  of  time  when 
misfortune  and  ruination  befell  the  Jews  most  severely, 
in  the  first  post-apostolic  generation,  the  Christians  were 
most  active  in  making  proselytes  among  Gentiles.  To 
have  then  preached  that  a  crucified  Jewish  rabbi  of  Gal- 
ilee was  their  savior,  would  have  sounded  supremely  ri- 
diculous to  those  heathens.  To  have  added  thereto,  that 
the  said  rabbi  was  crucified  by  the  command  of  a  Roman 
governor,  because  he  had  been  proclaimed  king  of  the 
Jews,  would  have  been  fatal  to  the  whole  scheme.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  vulgar  heathen,  where  the  Roman  gover- 
nor and  the  Jewish  rabbi  came  in  conflict,  the  former 
must  unquestionably  be  right,  and  the  latter  decidedly 
wrong.  To  have  preached  a  savior  who  was  justly  con- 


THP:  CKITIFIXION.  105 

drmned  to  die  tin-  death  of  a  slave  and  villain,  would 
certainly  have  proved  fatal  to  tho  whole  enterprise.  There- 
fore it  was  neces  ary  m  exonerate  Pilate  and  the  Unmans 
and  to  throw  the  whole  burden  upon  the  .lews,  in  order  to 
ablish  the  innocence  and  martyrdom  of  Jesus  in  the 
heathen  mind. 

l>;ist,  though  certainly  not  least,  it  must  be  taken  into 
consideration    that    Mark's   gospel,    which    is    the   m-iin 
OUrce  ot   the  others  was  written  in   the  time  of  Hadrian 
when  all  Jews  were  considered  dan^-rous  and  incorrigible 
rebels,  and  then-  religion  a  capital  crime  against  Rome 
To  have  maintained  then  that   the  savior  and  founder  of 
Christianity  was  a  Jewish  patriot,  who  was  proclaimed 
km-  of  the  Jews  and  was  therefore  crucified,  was  no  Ion- 
gcr  mere  folly  ;   it  was  exceedingly  dangerous,  and  would 
have  exposed   Christianity    to  the    fiercest   wrath  ot   the 
bloodthirsty  emperor.       What  more   of  a  crime  could  a 
body  of  persons  comaiit,  than  uphold  and  worship  a  reb- 
f,,  who  had   been  crucified  as  such  ?     Certainly  none   in 
the  estimation  of  a  Koman.     Therefore  the  whole  tenor 
tne  gospel  had  to  be    changed,    and  the   worst  point 
thereof    the  crucifixion,  had  to  be  circumvented,  as  Mark 
did   to  have  Pilate  appear    as  the  friend  of  Jesus,   who 
yielded  reluctantly  to  the  outside  clamor  of  the  Jews,  and 
against  his  will  and   conviction,   ordained    the  crucifixion 
oi  Jesus,  which,  of  course,  he  afterward  repented,  as  the 
apocryphal  gospels  narrate.     Still  Mark,  writing  in  Ju- 
d<  ..  although  a  century  post  festum,  had  to  be  careful  not 
:o  justify  the  Roman  more  than  was  actually  necessary    to 
avoid  danger.     But  as  the  story  travels  on 'outside  of  Ju- 
(lea,  all  considerations  are  dropped,  and   the  crime  of  the 
Jews  increases  in  proportion   with  the  innocence  and  jus- 
tice of  Pilate.     The  object    Avas    manifest,  the    necessity 
dire,  and  pious  fraud  was  not  considered  immoral  at  that 
.     Neither  those  writers,  nor  the  readers  then    it  ap- 
-irs,  saw  how  they  tore  the  martyr's  diadem  from  the 
lead  o:  Jesus.     If  he  was  the  mere   victim  of  a  furious 
mob   and  a  weak    and   vacillating  despot,    he  may  have 
risked  that  step,  knowing  in  advance  that  Pilate  was  in 
i.,  favor,  in  order  to  place  himself  under  Pilate's  pro- 
t'-'-'ion,  and  was    only  disappointed   in    his    expectation, 
because  there  was  no  escape  out  of  those  hands, 
the  best  in  his  estimation,  which  he  could  do  to 


106  THE   CRUCIFIED    KING. 

come  out  of  the  dilemma  in  which  he  had  unfortunately 
been  placed.  But  his  last  calculation  also  failed  :  Pilate 
yielded  to  a  mad  mob,  and  Jesus  was  crucified.  So  the 
story  would  appear,  if  the  evangelical  account  was  cor- 
rect, but  so  it  was  not. 

III.      THE   CRUCIFIED    KING. 

It  might  appear  from  the  foregoing  argument  that  the 
crucifixion  must  anyhow  be  a  historical  fact.  For,  being 
injurious  to  primitive  Christianity  among  the  heathens, 
so  that  the  whole  story  had  to  be  perverted  in  order  to 
be  less  offensive,  it  mi«ght  have  been  omitted  altogether 
if  it  had  not  been  a  fact.  This,  however,  is  only  apparent : 
it  is  no  real  argument.  Christ  crucified  was  preached  to 
the  heathens  by  Paul  before  the  existence  of  a  church, 
and  the  story  was  established  in  Christendom  long  before 
it  was  written.  But  why  should  Paul  or  anybody  else 
have  started  the  crucifixion  story  if  it  was  not  a  fact  ? 
There  is  an  answer  to  this  query  and  we  will  state  it. 

There  existed,  in  the. time  of  Paul,  among  the  Roman- 
Syrian  heathens,  a  wide-spread  and  deep  sympathy  for 
one  crucified  king  of  the  Jews,  as  is  evident  from  Dio 
Cassius,  Plutarch,  Strubo,  and  Joseph  us.  It  was  the 
youngest  son  of  Aristobul,  the  heroic  Maccabee.  In  the 
long  combat  for  the  crown  of  Palestine  by  the  brothers 
Hyrcan  and  Aristobul,  the  latter  at  last  succeeded  in 
gaining  the  sympathy  of  Julius  Csesar  for  his  cause,  who 

fave  him  two  legions,  and  sent  him  to  Syria  to  regain  his 
ingclom  ;  but  while  under  way,  men  of  Pornpey's  party 
destroyed  him  by  poison.  His  body  was  embalmed  in 
honey,  till  Antony  atterward  sent  it  to  Judea  to  be  buried  in 
the  royal  sepulchre.  About  the  same  time  Alexander,  the 
son  of  this  Aristobul,  who  fought  at  home  for  his  father's 
cause,  was  captured  by  Scipio  and  beheaded  at  Antioch. 
The  death  of  these  two  valiant  princes,  whose  cause  had 
been  declared  just  by  Julius  Csesar,  enlisted  wide-spread 
sympathy  among  Romans.  There  was  one  more  son  left 
of  this  heroic  family,  Antigonus,  who  followed  his  mother 
and  sister  to  Chalcis,  where  the  latter  was  queen.  In  the 
year  43  B.  c.,  however,  we  find  Antigonus  again  in  Pales- 
tine claiming  the  crown.  Allied  with  the  Parthians,  he 
maintained  himself  in  his  royal  position  for  six  years 
against  Herod  and  Marc  Antony.  At  last,  after  a  heroic 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  107 

life  and  reign,  he  fell  in  the  hands  of  this  Roman.  "An- 
tony now  gave  the  kingdom  to  a  certain  Herod,  and,  hav- 
ing stretched  Anii«n»nus  on  a  cross  and  scourged  him,  a 
thing  never  done  In-fore  to  any  other  king  by  the  Romans, 
he  put  him  to  death/'* 

The  fact  that  all  prominent  historians  of  those  days 
mention  this  extraordinary  occurrence,  and  the  manner 
how  they  did  it,  show  that  it  was  considered  one  of  Marc 
Antony's  worst  crimes  ;  and  that  the  sympathy  with  the 
crucified  king  was  wide-spread  and  profound.  Here  we 
may  well  have  the  source  of  the  crucifixion  story.  That 
class  of  heathens,  to  whom  the  Gospel  was  originally 
preached,  knew  no  difference  between  David  and  the 
Maccabees;  both  were  then  extinct  dynasties.  They 
had  heard  of  a  crucified  king  of  the  Jews,  who  was 
one  of  the  last  scions  of  a  heroic  family  and  a 
hero  himself,  young,  brave,  and  generous,  whose  fate 
was  regretted  and  whose  fame  was  heralded.  Paul, 
who  made  use  of  everything  useful,  narrated  the  end 
of  Jesus  to  correspond  with  the  end  of  Antigonus,  both 
stories  appearing  identical,  to  enlist  the  prevailing  sym- 
pathy ibr  the  hero  of  the  Gospel  story.  Therefore  he 
preached  "Christ  crucified. "  So  the  story  was  established 
among  the  Paul-Christians.  All  the  gospels  were  written 
by  Paul -Christians.  John  expounds  Paul  in  the  Alexan- 
drian method.  But,  in  the  time  of  Hadrian,  the  story 
had  to  be  turned  in  favor  of  Rome  and  against  the  Jews, 
as  we  have  seen  before;  and  so  Mark  did.  So  far,  then, 
there  is  not  the  least  evidence,  outside  of  Paul  and  Mark, 
that  Jesus  was  either  scourged  or  crucified.  Let  us  see, 
now,  how  much  fact  can  be  elicited  from  the  statements 
of  Mark  and  his  three  successors. 

IV.      THE   CRUCIFIXION    CONTRADICTED. 

It  is  evident  that  the  crucifixion  was  not  commonly 
believed  among  early  Christians.  It  is  contradicted  three 
times  in  the  Acts  of  Apostles,  and  if  we  are  to  believe 
the  author  of  that  book,  it  was  Peter  who  contradicted  it. 
"Whom  ye  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree"  (Acts,  v.  30),  says 
Peter  of  Jesus.  He  states  again  (x.  39),  "Whom  they  slew 

*  Dio  Cassiiis,  Book  xlix.,  p.  465.  Plutarch:  Life  of  Antony. 
John  (iill:  Notices  of  the  JeWB,  cti-.  T.  Salvador:  The  Romans  in 
Palestine.  Josephus,  Strabo,  and  others. 


108  THE    CRUCIFIXION      CONTRADICTED. 

and  hanged  on  a  tree;"  and  repeats  (xiii.  29),  "They  took 
him  down  from  the  tree,  and  laid  him  in  a  sepulchre.'' 
There  is  no  cross  and  no  crucifixion  in  these  statements, 
which  prove,  not  that  Peter  said  so  but  that  the  author  oi' 
the  Acts  believed  to  know  traditionally  from  Peter  that 
Jesus  was  not  crucified.  He  was  slain  and  then  hung  to 
a  tree. 

Mark  also,  it  appears,  was  aware  of  the  existing  doubts 
in  this  point.  He  informs  us  that  one  Simon,  a  Cyrenian, 
who  met  the  procession  leading  Jesus  to  Calvary,  was 
compelled  to  bear  his  cross.  John  (xix.  17)  contradicts 
this  point,  stating  plainly  that  Jesus  bore  the  cross.  If  it 
had  been  an  accredited  fact  that  Simon  bore  the  cross, 
John  would  not  have  gainsaid  it.  If  no  fact,  why  did 
Mark  state  it?  He  gives  us  his  reason  in  the  same  verse, 
although  Matthew  and  Luke  omit  it.  He  says  that  Simon, 
the  Cyrenian,  was  the  father  of  Alexander  and  Kufus. 
Both  these  men  were  companions  and  friends  of  Paul,* 
although  the  latter  afterward  turned  against  the  Paul- 
Christians.  Mark  wanted  a  witness  who  had  seen  the 
crucifixion,  and  by  whom  the  story  might  have  reached 
Paul.  Therefore  he  impressed  this  Simon  to  bear  the 
cross,  who  must  have  narrated  the  affair  to  his  sons, 
Alexander  and  Rufus,  of  whom  Paul  might  have  heard 
it.  So  he  managed  to  overcome  the  existing  doubts  con- 
cerning the  crucifixion.  Matthew  and  Luke  omitted  the 
two  sons  of  Simon,  and  John  omits  the  father  also,  because 
in  his  locality  the  crucifixion  story  was  not  doubted,  or 
perhaps  he  considered  this  testimony  insufficient.  He 
had  already  stated  that  Jesus  had  to  be  crucified,  because 
he  had  prophesied  it,  consequently,  believing  as  he  did, 
no  testimony  was  necessary  to  establish  the  fact.  So 
Mark  points  back  distinctly  to  the  source  of  the  crucifix- 
ion story,  viz.,  to  Paul,  on  whose  authority  he  accepted  it, 
without  any  other  information  to  rely  upon. 

It  is  supposed  that  the  sharp  contention  which  broke 
out  between  Paul  and  Barnabas,  his  companion,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  they  parted  with  one  another  (Acts,  xv. 
39),  had  its  cause  in  the  difference  of  opinion  concerning 
the  Messiah,  whom  Paul  preached  to  have  been  a  son  of 
David  ;  and  Barnabas  maintained  :  "But  because  it  might 
hereafter  be  said  that  Christ  was  the  son  of  David,  there- 

*  Romans,  xvi.  13;  Acts,  xix.  33;  1  Tim.,  i.  20;  2  Tim.,  iv.  14. 


Tin:  cuuriFixioN.  109 

fore  l)avid  fearing,  :uul  well  knowing  the  errors  of  the 
wicked,  saith,Thc  Lord  saith  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  tliou  <>n 
my  right  h;ind,"  etc.'  lint  it  might  be  that  this  \\as  not 
the  sole  cause  of  their  contention.  There  may  have  h.  en 
nnother.  Tohnul  in  his  \az<ircnuH  (letter  I.,  chapter 
tiith)  informs  us  that  he  had  seen  an  Italian  translation 
ot  a  gospel  of  Barnabas,  which  Cramer  sold  to  Prince 
Kngenc,  in  which  Barnabas  states  "Jesus  was  not  cruci- 
fied," and  lie  should  not  die  to  the  very  end  of  the  world. 
This  was  also  the  belief  of  the  Basilidians ;  and  in  this 
form  the  (io.-pcl  story  became  known  to  Mohammed. f 
'This,  we  believe,  leaves  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  cru- 
cifixion story  was  not  generally  believed  among  early 
Christians.  In  reading  the  canonical  Gospel,  they  must 
have  thought  like  Origenes  (Comm.  in  Joan,  vol.  x.  £  4), 
that  every  passage  in  Scripture  has  a  spri ritual  meaning, 
but  that  every  passage  has  not  a  literal  meaning  ;  that 
there  is  often  a  spiritual  truth  under  a  literal  falsehood; 
or,  as  he  says  elsewhere  (Homil.  6,  in  Genesis  Hi.),  that  the 
Scriptures  have  incorporated  into  their  history  many 
things  which  never  took  place.  Mosheim  says  (vol.  i.,  p. 
382),  "It  was  a  maxim  of  the  Church  that  it  was  an  act 
of  virtue  to  deceive  and  lie,  when  by  that  means  the 
interest  of  the  Church  might  be  promoted," 

V.   ALL  GREEK  EXCEPT  CALVARY. 

The  crucifixion  story,  as  before  us  in  the  Synoptics, 
was  not  written  in  Hebrew,  or  in  the  dialect  spoken  by 
the  Hebrews  of  Palestine.  This  is  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing particular  points.  Mark  and  Matthew  call  the 
place  of  crucifixion  Golgotha,  to  which  Mark  adds, 
"Which  is,  being  interpreted,  the  place  of  skull."  Mat- 
thew adds  the  same  interpretation,  which  John  copies 
without  the  word  Golgotha,  and  adds,  it  was  a  place  near 
Jerusalem.  Luke  and  Nicodemus  call  the  place  of  cru- 
cifixion Calvary,  which  is  the  Latin  Calvaria,  viz.,  the 
place  of  bare  skulls.  Therefore  the  name  does  not  refer 
to  the  form  of  the  hill,  but  to  the  bare  skulls  upon  it. 

Mark  and  Matthew  must  translate  the  word  Golgotha, 
hence  they  did  not  write  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  or  else 

*  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  edit.  London,  1820,  in  the  apocryphal 
New  Testament,  xi  1$. 
t  See  Koran,  Hi.,  v.  53  ;  iv.,  v.  156. 


110         ALL  GEEEK  EXCEPT  CALVARY. 

the  readers  would  have  been  supposed  to  understand  it. 
It  might  be  suggested,  the  Greek  translators  of  Mark  and 
Matthew  added  the  definition  which,  however,  is  not  the 
case.     They  pass  over   many  Hebrew  names  of  persons 
and  places  without  any  definition  ;  why  should  they  have 
made  an  exception  just  in  this  case  ?    Besides,  it  must  be 
remembered,  there  is  no  such  word  as  Golgotha  anywhere 
in  Jewish  literature,  and  there  is  no  such  place  mentioned 
anywhere  near  Jerusalem  or  in  Palestine  by  any  writer  ; 
and  in  fact  there  was  no  such  place,  there  could  have  been 
none  near  Jerusalem.     The  Jews  buried  their  (lead  care- 
fully.    Also  the  executed  convict  had  to  be  buried  before 
night.     No  bare   skulls,   bleaching  in  the  sun,  could  be 
found  in   Palestine,  especially   not   near   Jerusalem.     It 
was  law,  that  a  bare  skull,  the  bare  spinal  column,  or  also 
the  imperfect  skeleton  of  any  human   being,  make  man 
unclean   by  contact,  or  also   by  having  it  in  the  house. 
Man,  thus  made  unclean,  could  not  eat  of  any   sacrificial 
meal,  or  of  the  second  tithe,  before  he  had  gone  through  the 
ceremonies  of  purification;  jmd  whatever  he  touched  was 
also  unclean.*     Any  impartial  reader  can  see  that  the  ob- 
ject of  this  law  was  to  prevent  the  barbarous    practice  of 
heathens  of  having  human  skulls  and  skeletons  lie  about 
exposed  to  the  decomposing  influences  of  the  atmosphere, 
as  the  Romans  did  in  Palestine  alter  the  fall  of  Bethar, 
when  for  a  long  time  they  would  give  no  permission  to 
bury  the  dead  patriots.     This  law  was  certainly  enforced 
most  rigidly  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  of  which  they 
maintained  " Jerusalem  is  more  holy  than  all  other  cities 
surrounded  with  walls/7  so  that  it  was  not  permitted  to 
keep  a  dead  body  over  night  in  the  city,  or  to  transport 
through  it  human  bones.     Jerusalem  was  the  place  for  the 
sacrificial  meals  and  the  consumption  of  the  second  tithe, 
which  was  considered  very  holy  ;f  there,  and  in  the  sur- 
roundings, skulls  and  skeletons  were  certainly  never  seen 
on  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and  consequently  there  was 
no  place  called  Golgotha,  and  there  was  no  such  word  in 
the  Hebrew  dialect.    It  is  a  word  made  by  Mark  to  translate 
the  Latin  term  Calvaria,  which,  together  with  the  cruci- 
fixion story,    came    from    Rome.     But  after  the  Syrian 
word  was  made  nobody  understood  it;   and  Mark    was 
obliged  to  expound  it. 

*  Maimonides,  Hil.  Tumath  Meth.,  iii.  1. 
t  Maimonides,  Hil.  Beth  Habchirah,  vii.  14. 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  Ill 

This  explains  the  strung1  fact,  that  none  of  the  early 
Christians  cither  mention  the  spots  when-  Jons  was  cru- 
cified or  buried,  or  paid  the  least  respect  or  attention  to 
either,  so  that  none  In-fore  Knsebins  (330  A.  c.)  reler  to 
them,  and  then  some  pointed  to  the  northeast  and  others 
to  the  west  of  Jerusalem  to  find  Calvary.  They  did  not 
know  it,  because  there  was  .no  such  place.  So  hundred 
thousands  of  Christians  kneel  now  spellbound  before  a 
holy  hole,  which  they  call  the  holy  sepulchre,  none  knows 
why,  as  in  former  days  a  Calvary  was  made,  none  knows 
by  what  authority. 

The  next  point  to  be  considered  in  this  connection  is 
the  exclamation  of  Jesus  on  the  cross.  Mark  reports 
that  Jesus  cried  in  the  Palestine  dialect,  Elohij  Elohi, 
lamah  shabaktani?  which  is  a  mistake,  for  it  was  intended 
to  be  the  Aramaic  translation  of  "My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  It  must  be  metul  mah,  instead  of 
lomahj  which  is  Hebrew.  Matthew,  however,  reports 
Jesus  exclaimed,  Eli,  Eli,  lamah  sabachthani?  which  is  He- 
brew, and  signifies,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
sacrificed  me?"  Still  both  of  them  add  the  same  transla- 
tion— "Which  is,  being  interpreted,  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?"  This  leads  one  to  believe 
that  Mark  did  not  know  the  Aramaic,  and  Matthew  was 
ignorant  of  the  Hebrew. 

From  the  orthodox  Christian  standpoint  it  sounds  in- 
credible that  the  Son  of  God,  and  himself  God,  should 
pray  in  the  words  of  David,  "My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  Therefore  Luke,  who  clings  con- 
sistently to  Paul's  Son-of-God  dogma,  denies  this  part  of 
the  record  and  maintained  Jesus  exclaimed,  "My  Father, 
into  thy  hands  I  recommend  my  spirit,"  This  was  not 
enough  for  John,  whose  Logos  was  no  spirit  to  be  recom- 
mended to  God,  and  so  he  denies  the  statements  of  all  his 
predecessors  and  maintains,  Jesus  merely  said,  "It  is  ac- 
complished." John  also  denies  Luke's  statement  that 
Jesus  prayed,  "Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do,"  which  is  an  imitation  of  Moses  (Numbers, 
xv.  26).  It  is  characteristic  that  none  had  to  record  an 
original  word  of  the  dying  Jesus.  It  is  unlikely  that  a 
man  in  the  agony  of  death  should  have  nothing  at  all  to 
say,  and  murmur  a  few  brief  Bible  passages  then  and  there, 
most  likely  known  to  the  children  in  the  street.  This 


112  ALL  GREEK   EXCEPT   CALVARY. 

leads  to  one  of  the  two  suppositions,  either  Jesus  was  al- 
ready half  dead  and  unconscious  by  the  scourging  before 
he  was  crucified,  or  the  evangelists  did  not  know  any  bet- 
ter. They  did  not  know  what  Jesus  said,  and  did  not  un- 
derstand to  say  anything  important  for  him.  It  appears, 
this  was  the  reason  of  John  in  rejecting  the  statements  of 
his  predecessors,  and  maintaining  he  said  merely,  "  It  is 
accomplished/'  and  this  is  original,  if  nothing  else.  But 
this  is  only  one  word  in  Hebrew,  or  in  the  Hebrew  dialect, 
Chala/i  or  Chfdatah.  Who  paid  so  much  attention  to  the 
dying  man,  that  he  heard  that  one  word  spoken  upon  the 
cross?  If  he  spoke  only  that  one  word  and  it  was  heard, 
how  could  it  possibly  escape  the  memory  of  the  Synoptics  ? 
One  word  and  the  last  word  of  a  dying  martyr  and  teacher, 
if  it  had  really  been  uttered  and  heard,  could  not  have 
been  forgotten  or  overlooked  by  his  disciples.  It  must 
have  become  a  sort  of  watchword  in  the  nascent  church. 
But  (Father,  forgive  them!)  they  did  not  know  what  the 
dying  Jesus  said,  and  invented  for  him  words  or  phrases, 
each  to  suit  his  dogmatic  standpoint. 

Mark  and  Matthew,  translating  into  Greek  the  sup- 
posed exclamation  of  Jesus,  did  certainly  not  write  this 
part  of  the  story  in  any  but  the  Greek  language.  It  might 
again  be  maintained,  the  Greek  translators  added  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible  passage,  if  Mark's  lamah  for  mctul 
mah  was  not  in  the  way,  and  if  it  was  not  for  the  follow- 
ing important  point. 

Both  Mark  and  Matthew  report,  when  Jesus  cried  Eli, 
Eli,  or  Elohi,  Elohi,  those  who  stood  near  understood  him, 
"  He  calleth  Elias"  the  prophet  to  come  and  save  him. 
Among  Hebrews,  this  mistake  is  impossible.  For  Eli  is 
pronounced  Aili,  the  first  syllable  long,  and  Elias  is  pro- 
nounced Eleeyahu,  with  the  stress  on  the  third  syllable 
yah,  so  that  the  two  words  have  almost  no  similarity  in 
sound.  In  Greek,  however,  Eli  is  the  first  part  of  Elias, 
both  in  letters  and  sound,  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt 
whatever  the  writer  of  that  little  incident  had  the  Greek 
and  not  the  Hebrew  in  his  mind.  The  incident  could  not 
possibly  refer  to  Jews,  with  whom  the  niistake  is  impos- 
sible ;  it  must  refer  to  the  Roman  soldiers  about  the  cross, 
and  must  have  been  written  in  Greek. 

Finally,  attention  must  be  called  to  the  fact,  that  all 
the  Bible  passages  quoted  in  the  crucifixion  story  are 


THE  rurriFixiON.  113 

taken,  not    from  the  Hebrew  Bible,  but  from  the  Greek 
Septua<jfmt,  as  \vc  shall  notice  below.     Here  we  quote  but 
one  passage.      Luke  (xxiii.  %27)  reports,  that  .Jesus,  on   his* 
way    to    Calvary,    made  a   little  speech   to  the  lamenting 
women  who  followed   him.     '1  hey  wen;  daughters  of  .Je- 
rusalem.     Were  they  wives,  daughters,  or  sisters  of  th- 
who  cried,  u  Crucify  him  ?"  This  little  speech  again  is  not 
original.    It  is  partly  from  Jeremiah  (Luke,  xxi.  23),  and 
winds  up  with  a  passage  from  Hosea,  x.  8,  copied  literally 
almost  from  the  Septuagint.     Luke  has  Jesus  say,  'k  Then 
shall  they  begin  to  say  to  the  mountains,  Fall  on  us,  and  to 
the  hills,  Cover  us."    But  in  the  Hebrew  text  the  order  is 
reversed  ;  "  And  they  shall  say  to  the  mountains,  Cover  us, 
and  to  the  hills,  Fall  on  us."* 

We  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  adduce  any  more,  proof 
in  support  of  the  fact,  that  the  crucifixion  story  was  writ- 
ten originally  in  the  Greek.  The  object  of  Mark  must 
have  been  fof  the  Greeks  to  understand  and  know,  that 
his  sect  was  not  composed  of  Jews,  and  his  savior  was 
abandoned  by  them,  while  the  Romans  took  his  part.  It  was 
strictly  legendary,  i.  e.,  to  be  read  in  public  for  certain 
purposes.  This  also  accounts  for  the  fact,  that  the  Jewish 
sources  have  no  notice  of  the  crucifixion.  The  story  was 
Greek  and  read  in  the  churches  only.  The  Jews  of  Pal- 
estine, in  the  time  of  Hadrian,  and  long  after,  were  fanat- 
icized  against  the  Greek  and  Latin,  and  went  to  no  Chris- 
tian church.  Toward  the  end  of  the  second  century,  we 
still  find  *  that  Rab  went  neither  to  the  meetings  of  the 
Xazarcnes  nor  of  the  Ebionites.  Samuel  went  to  the 
meetings  of  the  Ebionites  but  not  of  the  Xazarenes.  The 
sect  which  left  the  mother  congregation  on  the  election  of 
Mark  as  bishop,  retained  the  old  name  of  Ebionites,  and 
the  flock  of  Mark  were  Nazarenes.  Therefore  the  Jews 
knew  nothing  of  the  crucifixion  story. 

VI.      THE    LEGEND. 

Readers  acquainted  with  the  homiletic  literature  (Mid- 
rashim  and  Agadoth}  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  at  the  time 
of  the  origin  of  Christianity,  see  at  once  the  legendary 
character,  of  the  Synoptics  especially.  It  was  the  uni- 
versal custom  of  preachers  and  teachers,  either  to  remodel 
and  shape  events  to  illustrate  or  to  fulfill  scriptures,  as  is 

*  Talmud  Babli,  Sabbath,  116  6. 


114  THE  LEGEND. 

done  to  this  very  clay,  or  to  imagine  incidents  in  all  forms 
of  poetry,  in  order  to  impress  truths  or  superstitions  on 
uncultivated  minds,  by  concrete  symbols,  fables  or  myths, 
parables  or  personifications.  In  numerous  cases,  poster- 
ity took  those  tropes  for  facts,  and  enlarged  hugely  on 
them.  The  whole  of  the  gospels  are  written  in  the  same 
method.  A  passage  in  the  Bible  is  expounded  either  by 
a  parable,  or  by  a  brief  illustration,  or  by  an  event 
shaped  to  fulfill  it,  exactly  as  all  the  preachers  and  teach- 
ers of  those  days  did.  This  is  the  case  especially  in  the 
crucifixion  story,  from  beginning  to  end.  A  number  of 
events,  real  or  imaginary,  are  so  adjusted  that  they  fit  and 
fulfill  certain  Bible  passages.  No  critical  reader  imag- 
ines that  consecutive  events  transpire  exactly  so  that  they 
fulfill  scriptures.  This  would  do  away  at  once  with  all 
human  freedom.  He  will  certainly  be  led  to  think  the 
events  are  either  invented,  or  so  re-adjusted  as  may  suit 
the  case.  Legends  of  this  description  may  be  useful  for 
church  purposes,  or  also  private  devotion  and  edification  • 
but  as  histo:ieal  sources  they  are  spurious. 

The  legendary  character  of  Mark's  crucifixion  story  is 
clearly  betrayed  in  the  time  which  he  fixes  for  the  particular 
events.  The  Hebrews  in  the  second  century  expected  the 
Kedeemer  to  come  on  Passover,*  the  day  of  Israel's  redemp- 
tion from  Egypt.  Hence  Jesus  had  to  accomplish  the  re- 
demption task  on  the  first  day  of  Passover.  Again,  the 
death  of  Jesus  was  looked  upon  by  the  primitive  Christians 
as  the  revelation  of  the  new  covenant.  Therefore,  the  event 
had  to  take  place  on  a  Friday,  between  the  hours  of 
twelve  and  three;  for,  according  to  Hebrew  traditions, 
the  revelation  on  Mount  Sinai  took  place  on  a  Fridayf,  be- 
tween the  hours  of  twelve  and  three.  J  Starting  from  the 
idea  of  a  second  redemption  and  a  second  revelation  con- 
nected in  one  event,  it  was  necessary  to  embellish  Cal- 
vary somewhat  Sinai-like.  But  the  original  picture  of  the 
thunders  and  lightnings  of  Sinai  was  too  grand  for  a  dy- 
ing demi-god,  the  poetry  too  sublime  to  be  easily  imitated. 
The  contrast  would  have  been  too  obvious.  There,  a  lofty 
mountain  in  the  wilderness,  with  an  entire  nation  stand- 


p-my  121  V?NJJ  ta    Mechilta,  chapter  xiv. 

t^o  im  ^?K~\V"<  rcy  nap  aip  nniN  DHJO  Ni—  Pirke  Kabbi  Eliezer, 
chapter  xli. 

J  an^riN^  n?n  ova  niyo  ycroi  nnann  n«  VN-W  V?ap  ava  rnj?»  twa— 
Ibid,  chapter  xlvi. 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  ]  1  5 

ing  in  awe  at  the  foot  thereof ;  and  here,  a  narrow  strip  of 
land  outside  of  the  city,  with  a  small  mol>,  a  few  rude 
soldiers,  and  some  lamenting  women.  There,  a  nation  to 
listen  to  the  voice  of  the  Almighty  ;  and  here,  barbarous 
scorn,  moans,  and  the  recitation  of  a  few  popular  passages 
from  the  Hible.  There,  the  center  figure  is  the  most  sub- 
lime which  imagination  can  depict — God  coming  down  in 
a  flood  of  fire  upon  the  dark  clouds  of  Sinai ;  and  here,  a 
dead  man  on  the  cross.  There,  the  decalogue  is  announced; 
and  here,  nothing  is  given  to  man  except  probably  the 
one  word,  u  It  is  done."  It  would  have  looked  extremely 
foolish  to  transfer  the  Sinai  scenes  to  Calvary;  and  yet 
it  had  to  be  embellished  somewhat  Sinai-like.  Incapable 
of  producing  original  poetry,  the  evangelical  authors  re- 
sorted to  the  .Bible,  especially  to  Zachariah  xiv.,  Psalms 
xxii.  and  Ixix.,  and  Isaiah  liii.,  and  made  of  it  the  entire 
crucifixion  scene,  with  all  its  details  and  embellishments. 
Biblical  tropes  were  changed  into  facts.  This  point  must 
be  investigated  more  thoroughly.  We  begin  with  Zach- 
ariah xiv. 

VII.      ZACHA3JIAH    XIV. 

!No  unprejudiced  reader,  whatever  his  standpoint  may  be, 
can  believe  that  the  author  of  Zachariah  xiv.  thought  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He  speaks  of  no  person  at  all.  It 
is  the  combat  about  Jerusalem,  and  the  victory  of  God's 
people,  which  illumine  his  visions,  and  fructify  his  imag- 
ination. In  that  final  victory  he  prophesies  especially 
three  things,  which  can  not  be  related  to  Jesus  and  the 
crucifixion.  He  says  (verse  8)  that  then  water  would 
spout  forth  from  Jerusalem  and  flow  in  two  perpetual 
streams  to  two  seas ;  and  Jerusalem  is  as  dry  to-day  as  it 
ever  was.  He  says  (verse  9)  that  then  God  should  be 
king  over  all  the  earth,  God  should  be  one,  and  His  name 
one;  but  there  were,  and  there  are  now,  a  host  of  kings 
and  gods  besides  the  Eternal  One,  and  not  even  the  true 
pronunciation  of  the  Tetragrammaton  is  known  to-day. 
Then  he  prophesies  (from  verse  13,  etc.)  the  glory  of  Je- 
rusalem, its  temple,  and  the  feast  of  booths  to  follow  that 
final  victory,  none  of  which  has  transpired  after  the  death 
of  Jesus. 

And  yet,  the  evangelists  take  part  of  this  chapter,  which 
has  no  relation  whatever  to  Jesus  or  crucifixion,  and  em- 
bellish with  it  the  Calvary  scene,  to  make  it  somewhat  Si- 


116  ZACHAKIAH   XIV. 

nai-like.  God  who  comes,  according  to  Zachariah,  to 
fight  for  Jerusalem,  will  stand  upon  Mount  Olivet. 
Therefore  Jesus,  during  his  fight  against  Pharisees,  Zad- 
ducees,  and  priests,  had  to  make  his  principal  home  on 
Mount  Olivet.  But  he  could  not  split  that  mountain,  as 
Zachariah  imagined  God  would,  and  move  one  part  north 
and  the  other  south  ;  therefore  the  curtain  of  the  temple 
had  to  be  torn  in  twain  when  Jesus  died,  although  none 
has  ever  mentioned  the  fact.  The  curtain  was  there  some 
thirty-five  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus  ;  had  it  been 
torn,  somebody  must  have  noticed  it.  The  earthquake 
mentioned  by  Zachariah  (verse  5),  of  course  was  bor- 
rowed to  embellish  Calvary  ;  it  sounded  somewhat  Sinai- 
like.  But  it  was  rather  childish  to  follow  Zachariah  as 
far  as  the  resurrection  of  the  saints.  Why  did  the  saints 
resurrect?  why  not  redeemed  sinners,  when  Jesus  was 
crucified  ?  Why  did  God  trouble  those  saints,  whoever 
they  were,  to  leave  their  graves,  go  into  the  city,  and 
then  die  again  ?  They  must  have  died  again  very  short- 
ly, for  nobody  in  the  world  has  heard  any  thing  about 
them.  Because  Zachariah  states  (verse  5)  God  coming  to 
Jerusalem,  "  And  the  Lord  my  God  cometh,  all  the  saints 
with  thee,"  therefore  the  saints  and  not  the  sinners  had 
to  resurrect  and  visit  the  city  on  that  particular  day.  But 
in  the  fertile  imagination  of  Zachariah,  the  day  of  that 
terrible  combat  must  be  dark,  very  dark,  and  when  the 
victory  is  won,  toward  evening  the  light  breaks  forth 
(verses  7  and  8).  Also  this  darkness  was  transported 
over  to  Calvary,  to  embellish  the  scene.  If  these  mira- 
cles had  been  wrought  indeed,  all  Israel  and  many  Gen- 
tiles must  have  known  it,  and  they  must  have  reached  Jo- 
sephus,  Philo,  or  Plinius,  and  they  must  have  taken  no- 
tice thereof.  Such  extraordinary  phenomena  are  not  ig- 
nored. Besides,  the  masses  who  were  in  favor  of  Jesus 
must  have  been  strengthened  in  their  faith ;  and  yet, 
there  were  but  120  Christians  found  a  considerable  time 
after  the  death  of  Jesus.  So  these  miracles  were  not 
wrought,  and  the  entire  outer  embellishment  of  Calvary 
is  taken  from  Zachariah  ;  not  because  it  was  believed  this 
prophecy  referred  to  Jesus,  but  simply  because  the  evan- 
gelical writers  were  incompetent  to  invent  original  poetry. 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  117 

t 
VIII.      PSALM   XXII. 

The  twenty- second  psalm  was  written  probably  in  the 
time  of  the  Maccabean  struggles.  It  contains  several  ex- 
pressions pointing  to  that  age  ;  and  the  ancient  rabbis  al- 
ivady  admitted  that  verse  5,  etc.,  refers  to  Mordecai  and 
Esther,  and  that  age  of  persecution.*  It  is  no  prophecy, 
and  its  author  never  evinces  the  least  intention  of  proph- 
esying. It  is  the  prayer  of  a  man  and  leader  in  Israel, 
in  time  of  extreme  distress,  probably  of  Jonathan  the 
Asmonean,  when  on  that  eventful  Friday  night  he  swam 
the  Jordan  with  his  600  heroic  patriots,  to  escape  the 
Syrian  army ;  and  closes  in  a  tone  of  cheer  and  encour- 
agement, trusting  in  God  and  a  good  cause.  And  yet 
tli is  chapter  was  taken  hy  the  evangelical  writers  to 
embellish  the  crucifixion  story. 

The  beginning  is  made  by  Mark  in  the  exclamation  of 
"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?7'  which 
is  the  first  verse  of  Psalm  xxii.  Its  author  says  of  him- 
self (verse,  6,  etc.)  ;  "But  I  am  a  worm  and  no  man  ;  a  re- 
proach of  men,  and  despised  of  the  people.  All  they 
that  see  me,  laugh  me  to  scorn  ;  they  shoot  out  the  lip, 
they  shake  the  head,  saying,  He  trusted  on  the  Lord  that 
he  would  deliver  him,  seeing  he  delighted  in  him."  This 
was  changed  by  Mark  into  the  fact,  "And  they  that 
passed  by  railed  on  him  [Jesus],  wagging  their  heads,  say- 
ing," etc.  "  Likewise  also  the  chief  priests,  mocking,  said 
among  themselves,  with  the  scribes,  He  saved  others  :  him- 
self he  can  not  save."  None  can  tell  how  Mark  came  to 
know  what  those  scribes  said  among  themselves,  as  he  was 
no  prophet  and  no  son  of  a  prophet.  Nor  could  anybody 
find  a  reason  why  he  notices,  particularly,  the  wagging  of 
their  heads,  if  it  was  not  plain,  almost  self-evident,  that 
he  imitated  the  above  passage  of  the  psalm  without  ref- 
erence to  fact.  Matthew  and  Luke  copied  this  incident 
with  some  changes,  but  John  omitted  it. 

The  Psalmist  says  (verse  15),  "  My  strength  is  dried  up 
like  a  potsherd,  and  my  tongue  cleaveth  to  my  jaws." 
Tli  is  is  the  cause  why  Jesus  had  to  be  thirsty  before  he 
expired,  and  to  say  so;  although  in  regard  to  the  drink 
there  is  a  confusion  of  accounts  in  the  evangelical  reports, 
on  account  of  another  psalm  passage,  as  we  shall  notice 
below. 

*  Midrash  Thilim,  chapter  xxii. 


118 

The  three  nails  are  an  imitation   of  verse  seventeen  of 


the  same  psalm,  where  it  says  T)  '"V  *~1JO  "  Like  a 
lion  [they  break]  my  hand  and  feet."  The  same  figure  of 
speech  oceursin  Isaiah,  xxxviii.  13.  King  Hezekiah  says  of 
himself,  u  Like  a  lion,  so  broke  all  my  bones."  The  psalm 
passage,  is  most  likely  an  imitation  thereof.  Yet  by  a 
mistake  of  the  Septuagint  the  word  Ka'ari  —  "  like  a  lion," 
is  changed  into  Kctaru  —  "they  pierced  my  hands  and 
feet,"  Therefore,  and  for  no  other  reason,  the  nails  were 
driven  through  the  hands  and  feet  of  Jesus  ;  although 
there  exists  no  rational  ground  whatever  to  believe  while 
others,  like  the  two  thieves,  were  merely  tied  to  the  cross, 
that  Jesus,  by  the  particular  friendship  of  Pilate,  was 
nailed  to  the  cross. 

Next  (verse  18),  the  Psalmist  says,  "They  part  my 
garments  among  them,  and  cast  lots  u'pon  my  vesture." 
Mark  changes  this  into  the  fact,  "  Ancl  when  they  had 
crucified  him,  they  parted  his  garments,  casting  lots  upon 
them,  what  every  man  should  take."  He  carefully  copies 
the  parallelism  of  the  Psalmist  :  "  parted  "and  then  "  cast 
lots."  So  do  Matthew  and  Luke.  John,  however,  less 
acquainted  with  the  rule  of  Hebrew  poetry,  sees  in  the 
psalm  passage  two  kinds  of  clothes,  "  my  garments"  and 
"  my  vesture,"  and  he  must  have  another  story  to  com- 
plete the  above.  He  says  the  four  soldiers  who  crucified 
Jesus  (xix.  23),  divided  his  undergarments  in  four  parts. 
But  there  was  also  a  coat  without  seam,  woven  in  one 
piece,  and  they  cast  lots  who  should  have  this  peculiar 
garment.  So  the  Synoptics  did  not  say  the  thing  right, 
and  John  had  to  correct  them  :  "  That  the  scripture  might 
be  fulfilled,  which  sayeth,  They  parted  my  raiment  among 
them,  and  for  my  vesture  they  cast  lots."  So  John  tells 
us  why  the  whole  incident  was  invented. 

IX.      PSALM    LXIX. 

That  the  sixty-ninth  psalm  has  no  reference  to  Jesus, 
is  evident  from  the  horrid  curses  which  that  author  throws 
at  his  enemies.  He  says  : 

"Let  their  eyes  be  darkened,  that  they  see  not  ;  and  make  their 
loins  continually  to  shake.  Pour  out  thine  indignation  upon 
them,  and  let  thy  wrathful  anger  take  hold  of  them.  Let  their 
habitation  he  desolate  ;  and  let  none  dwell  in  their  tents.  For 
they  persecute  him  whom  thou  hast  smitten;  and  they  talk  to  the 
grief  of  those  whom  thou  hast  wounded.  Add  iniquity  unto 


THE    CKITCIFIXIOX.  119 

their  iniquity:  and   let   them   not   o.mr   into  thy    ri^ht- 
Let  them    lie'  hlotted    (.lit    oi    llic    hook    ot    tin-    living,   and  not   he 
\vritten  with  the  righteous.     J'.ut  1  am  poor  and  .sorrowiiil ;  let  thy 
salvation,  U  (i<.<l,  set  me  uj»  on  high." 

Curses  like  these  could  not  be  brought  in  connection 
with  Jesu-.  They  must  have  been  uttered  by  some  cap- 
tive warrior  in  Uabylonia,  who  could  hope,  "  I1  or  (iod  will 
save  /ion,  and  will  build  up  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  they 
will  dwell  there  and  inherit  it."  This  again  could  have 
no  reference  to  Jesus.  And  yet,  the  twenty-second  verse 
of  this  psalm  was  the  cause  of  the  various  drinks  offered 
to  Jesus  on  the  cross. 

The  drink  offered  to  Jesus,  according  to  Mark,  was 
first  wine  mixed  with  myrrh,  and  then  vinegar.  The  bev- 
erage made  of  wine  and  myrrh  was  referred  to  Jewish 
custom,  to  give  a  certain  lotion  to  the  culprit  before  jthe 
execution,  to  produce  stupor.*  There  are,  however,  two 
mistakes  in  this  supposition.  In  the  first  place,  the  Jews, 
according  to  Mark,  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  crucifixion, 
and  the  Romans  knew  nothing  of  this  custom.  In  the 
second  place,  myrrh  is  one  thing,  and  olibanum  or  liba- 
num,  called  by  the  Hebrews  libanah,  is  another.  The 
myrrh  makes  the  wine  bitter, and  produces  no  stupor;  but 
the  olibanum,  of  which  the  Jewish  sources  in  this  case 
speak,  produces  stupor.  Mark  speaks  of  myrrh  and  not  of 
olibanum  ;  hence  he  thought  of  bitter  wine  and  not  of  stu- 
por. He  thought  of  the  twenty-first  verse  in  the  sixty- 
ninth  psalm,  "  They  gave  me  gall  in  rny  meat  [refresh- 
ment]; and  in  my  thirst  they  gave  vinegar  to  drink." 
Therefore,  and  for  no  other  reason,  the  bitter  wine  and 
the  vinegar  were  introduced.  Matthew7  understood  this 
well,  and  changed  the  myrrh  into  gall,  because  he  thought 
tt'JO  signifies  gall  and  not  myrrh,  Luke  and  John  drop 
both  myrrh  and  gall,  because  they  understood  'DV13D  lit- 
erally, '*  in  my  iood,"  and  could  not  see  how  one  could  be 
fed  on  gall  or  myrrh.  Still,  out  of  respect  for  their  pre- 
decessors, they  retained  the  vinegar,  because  vinegar  and 
water  was  a  common  beverage  among  the  Roman  soldiers. 
There  is  not  the  least  cause  of  suspicion,  that  those  various 
drinks  about  which  there  is  so  much  confusion  in  the  evan- 
gelical account,  are  various  presentations  of  the  fact.  The 
whole  incident  was  simply  made  from  those  psalm  pas- 

*  Maiinonides  Sauhedrin,  xvi.  2. 


120  ISAIAH  LIII. 

sages,  and  introduced  as  an  embellishment  of  the  story. 
It  is  not  history  ;  it  is  legend. 

X,      ISAIAH  LIII. 

The  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  is  one  of  the  causes 
that  Jesus  was  crucified,  and  had  so  much  to  suffer,  the 
orthodox  trinitarians  maintain.  If  that  Isaiah  had  not 
prophesied  so  horrible  a  fate  for  the  Messiah,  Jesus  might 
iiave  escaped  all  the  tribulation  and  suffering.  But  being 
prophesied,  it  had  to"  be  fulfilled,  and  so  Jesus  had  to  sut- 
ler. So  it  was  either  God's  or  the  prophet's  fault ;  one  of 
the  two  must  have  fixed  the  fate  of  Jesus  centuries  before 
he  lived,  and  those  who  executed  it  were  mere  tools  in 
the  hands  of  an  irresistible  force.  We  maintain,  on  the 
contrary,  the  crucifixion  story  was  made  to  correspond,  in 
part  at  least,  with  the  fifty -third  chapter  of  Isuiah,  as  it 
was  with  the  chapters  reviewed  before.  ,  We  will  take  two 
instances  in  evidence  of  our  assertion. 

Luke  maintains,  Jesus  prayed,  "  Father,  forgive  them/' 
etc.,  which  is  not  mentioned  by  Mark  or  Matthew,  and  is 
omitted  by  John.  Had  Jesus,  indeed,  made  tnat  prayer 
in  his  dying  hour,  having  said  so  very  little,  it  could  not 
possibly  have  been  forgotten,  and  Mark  or  Matthew  must 
have  known  it  and  noticed  it.  It  is  too  brief  to  escape 
the  memory,  and  too  generous  to  pass  unnoticed.  Again, 
had  John  believed  it  a  fact,  he  must  have  brought  it  into 
his  narrative.  Therefore  we  are  certain  that  the  prayer 
was  made  by  Luke.  Why  did  Luke  make  it  ?  Simply 

because  Isaiah  Ixiii.  closes  with  the  words  PUD'  D\J7^D^ 
"  And  he  will  make  intercession  for  the  transgressors." 
These  words,  admitting  of  a  different  construction,  close 
the  chapter,  and  with  Luke,  this  prayer  closes  the  life  of 
Jesus ;  so  that  no  doubt  can  be  left  of  Luke's  intention 
to  describe  the  end  of  Jesus  exactly  as  the  chapter  ends. 
Thus  we  know  the  intentions  of  this  evangelist. 

Again,  all  the  evangelists  notice  repeatedly,  and  with 
particular  care,  the  consistent  silence  of  Jesus  in  his  trial 
beibre  the  Jews  and  Pilate,  and  also  before  lierod,  accord- 
ing to  Luke.  We  have  noticed  above,  that  if  those 
trials  had  actually  taken  place,  the  disciples  had  no  means 
whatever  to  know  what  was  said  or  not  said  there.  Hence 
the  silence  of  Jesus  is  no  historical  iact,  nor  was  it  put 
for  moral  effect.  It  was  put  in  because  it  is  stated  twice 


TIM;  CRUCIFIXION.  121 

in  Isaiah,  liii.  7  :  "  And  lie  will  not  open  his  mouth."  The 
story  had  to  tally  with  the  prophecy. 

The  intention  of  the  evangelists  is  expressed  by  Mark 
in  regard  to  the  two  thieves.  Two  thieves,  Mark  narrates, 
were  crucified  with  Jesus,"  theoneon  his  right  hand,  and 
the  other  on  his  left  ;"  whieh  with  some  change  is  repeated 
by  the  other  evangelists.  Mark  tells  us,  this  had  to  be 
done  in  order  to  fulfill  the  Scriptures,  u  And  he  was  num- 
bered with  the  transgressors."  Isaiah  uses  here  the  term 
rU-J  "he  was  numbered,"  in  the  past  tense,  and  speaks  of 
one  who  was  numbered  with  transgressors,  and  not  of  one 
who  should  hereafter  be  so  numbered  ;  hence  he  could  not 
have  thought  of  Jesus.  But  the  evangelists  were  no  gram- 
marians, and  did  not  care  about  such  niceties.  Still  the  oc- 
currence looks  suspicious.  It  appears  those  two  poor  iel- 
lows  had  to  die  on  the  cross  then  and  there,  by  an  inevit- 
able decree  of  Providence  ;  because  God  was  bound  to 
make  good  His  word  spoken  by  Jsaiah.  They  were  bound 
to  be  thieves,  in  order  to  be  crucified  then  and  there.  This 
is  fatalism  in  its  worst  form. 

Our  suspicion  grows,  if  we  turn  over  to  Luke.  Mark 
and  Matthew  tell  us,  the  two  thieves  also  mocked  Jesus. 
They  had  an  eye  upon  Psalm  xxii.  7  :  "  All  they  that  see 
me  laugh  me  to  scorn."  Luke,  however,  has  another  ver- 
sion of  the  affair.  He  says  only  one  of  the  thieves  in- 
sulted Jesus,  but  the  other  was  a  pious  thief,  who  rebuked 
his  comrade  like  a  moralizing  preacher.  He  made  a  hand- 
some gallow  speech,  confessed  his  guilt,  and  acknowledged 
the  innocence  of  Jesus.  How  did  he  know  it  ?  Did  he 
in  his  prison  communicate  with  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  The  pious 
thief  upon  the  cross  rises  in  his  emphasis  to  the  elf  max  in 
his  prayer,  "  Ilemember  me  when  thou  comest  into  thy 
kingdom."  This  is  certainly  strange  and  marvelous.  The 
thief  knew  more  and  believed  more  than  the  disciples, 
who  for  a  long  time  after  waited  for  the  return  of  Jesus 
to  establish  his  kingdom  in  Palestine,  and  not  somewhere 
in  heaven.  If  there  is  any  doubt  that  this  thief,  his 
speech  and  prayer,  are  fictitious,  the  answer  of  Jesus,  ac- 
cording to  Luke,  dispels  it.  Jesus,  says  Luke,  replied, 
"  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise."  These 
words  are  from  1  Samuel,  xxviii.  19 — 

"  Moreover  the  Lord  will  also  deliver  Israel  with  thee  into  the 
band  of  the  Philistines ;  and  to-morrow  shalt  thou  and  thy  sons 
be  with  me:  the  Lord  also  shall  deliver  the  host  of  Israel  into 
the  hand  of  the  Philistines'' — 


122  ISAIAH   LIU. 

With  the  exception  of  the  Greek  paradise.  Here  we  have 
no  longer  the  simple  Son  of  man,  the  martyr  in  his  last 
agony  ;  here  we  have  the  Jesus  of  the  second  centur}7,  who 
takes  out  the  souls  from  hell,  as  Nicodemus  narrates,  for- 
gives sins,  and  does  such  other  commission  business  for 
the  Almighty.  But  as  though  that  was  not  enough  to  es- 
tablish the  authorship  of  Luke,  there  comes  yet  the  word 
u  paradise."  The  Jews  called  the  future  happiness  "  life 
eternal,"  or  Chelek  Volam  habba.  The  word  paradise  oc- 
curs in  the  Talmud  only,  and  also  there  it  bears  an  en- 
tirely different  signification.  Also  in  the  !New  Testament, 
it  only  occurs  in  2  Corinthians,  xii.  4,  and  Romans,  ii.  7  — 
Paul  speaking  to  Greeks.  In  Jerusalem,  at  that  time, 
none  used  the  word  paradise.  This  is  certainly  an  anach- 
ronism, and  establishes,  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  pious 
thief,  with  all  about  him,  is  Luke's  ingenious  invention, 
which  John  did  not  believe  and  would  not  adopt.  Luke 
needed  the  incident  to  fulfill  Scriptures.  The  closing  pas- 
sage of  Isaiah  liii.  has  three  members,  the  middle  of  which 
was  not  fulfilled  :  "And  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,"  which, 
according  to  the  Septuagint,  must  be  rendered,  "And  he 
bare  great  sin."  So  Jesus  had  to  take  away  the  great  sin 
of  the  thief  and  secure  to  him  the  paradise  —  all  that  the 
fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  be  applied  literally  to  Jesus. 

Had  Luke  believed  the  story  of  the  two  thieves,  he 
could  not  have  the  audacity  to  add  his  fictitious  incident. 
But  knowing  that  the  thieves  were  there  in  the  crucifixion 
story,  because  Isaiah  was  understood  to  suggest  it,  he 
could  add  another  story  on  the  same  ground. 

It  is  strange  that  none  of  the  critics  ever  discussed  the 
question,  Why  were  these  thieves  crucified  ?  They  were 
thieves  (Listis),  and  no  robbers  or  democratic  guerrilleroes, 
as  Barabbas  was;  so  the  evangelists  state.  Well,  then, 
why  were  they  crucified  ?  The  Jewish  law  (Exodus,  xxi. 
37  ;  xxii.  1-3)  punishes  no  thief  with  death.  It  could 
not  have  been  a  later  law  among  the  Jews  to  punish 
thieves  so  severely  ;  tor  it  was  a  settled  principle  in  He- 
brew legislation  that  capital  punishment  could  be  inflicted 
only  where  the  Bible  dictates  it,*  and  history  oilers  no 
precedence  to  the  contrary.  The  Roman  law  concerning 
theft  and  robbery,  borrowed  from  the  Athenians,  was  in 


*  onoio  ns-V??  nrpD   DVPTI  p*o   n.-nn   ao^n   mn   n:n  Vy—  Siphri, 
Shophtim,  154. 


THE  CRUCIFIXION.  J23 

spirit  the  same   as  the  Jewish  law.     Therefore    none  can 
tell  why  thieves  were  crucified. 

We  know  only  of  one  intimation  in  Herodotus  (Euterpe 
121)  that  certain  thieves  in  Egypt  suffered  the  penalty  of 
death.  Mark,  who  came  from  Egypt,  may  have  mistaken 
this  for  a  Roman  law,  and  thought  two  thieves  might  have 
lurn  crucified  also  in  Jerusalem.  To  the  best  of  our 
knowledge,  no  such  case  is  recorded  anywhere  ;  and  there 
is  not  the  slightest  ground  to  believe  that  the  two  persons 
were  crucified  with  Jesus.  It  was  necessary  for  Mark  to 
make  out  a  case  similar  to  that  of  Isaiah's  servant  of  the 
Lord,  and  he  ornamented  his  imaginary  Golgotha  with 
two  more  crosses. 

XI.      THE  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENT. 

We  know*  now  that  the  crucifixion  story,  postfestum,  was 
so  shaped  and  represented  that  superficial  and  ungram- 
matical  readers  of  the  Bible  might  have  been  led  to  be- 
lieve it  had  been  done  so  and  not  otherwise,  because  it 
was  prophesied  ;  and  Jesus  being  the  suffering  person  as 
prophesied,  must  have  been  the  Messiah.  It  must  always 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  gospels  were  not  written  for 
Jews  ;  for  when  the  first  was  written,  the  separation  of 
Jew  and  Christian,  whatever  name  this  or  that  sect  bore, 
was  an  accomplished  fact,  and  fanaticism  kept  them  far 
apart.  The  evangelists  wrote  chiefly  for  Gentiles,  whose 
knowledge  of  the  Bible  was  limited  and  derived  from 
translations  not  always  correct. 

The  causes  which  prompted  the  disciples,  and  after 
them  the  evangelists,  to  accommodate  the  gospel  story  to 
biblical  events  and  tropes  are  easily  discovered.  In  the 
first  place,  it  was  the  primary  intention  of  the  apostles 
to  preach  Judaism,  which  became,  with  Paul,  denational- 
ized Judaism,  which  had  its  numerous  admirers  among 
the  Gentiles  in  Rome,  and  throughout  the  empire.  The 
Bible  had  become  known  to  the  Gentiles  as  a  holy  book 
long  before  the  apostles.  Therefore,  Paul  argues  chiefly 
from  the  Jewish  Bible,  always  presupposing  it  as  well 
known  to  his  readers  or  hearers  as  a  holy  book.  In  or- 
der to  have  effect  with  those  devout  Gentiles,  the  Jesus 
story  had  necessarily  to  be  propped  upon  the  Jewish  Bi- 
ble. Take  away  this  underlying  authority,  and,  for  all  re- 
ligious purposes,  the  whole  story  shrinks  to  a  common  and 


124  THE    SCRIPfURAL    AEGUMENT. 

poetically  adorned   biographical  sketch,  overloaded   with 
ghost  stories  and  incredible  miracles. 

In  the  second  place,  the  death  of  Jesus  was  certainly  a 
source  of  scorn   and  derision    to  his  surviving  admirers. 
The  conquered,  captured,  and  executed  Messiah  was  too 
impotent  a  figure  to  the  oriental  imagination,  and  the  Jew- 
ish ideal  of  a  redeemer,  not  to  excite  derision  and  scorn. 
The  disciples  who  believed  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  in- 
deed, and  that  he  had  laid  down  his  life  for  theirs,  could 
not  imagine  that  this  was  not  a  particular  arrangement  of 
Providence  for  the  common  good ;  and  being  such,  pious 
Jews  as  they  were,  they  believed  it  must  be  foreshadowed 
in  the  Bible.     Illiterate,  as  they   were,  and   in  frequent 
communication  with  Grecian  and  Syrian  heathens  in  Pal- 
estine, the  idea  of  the  sacrificed  Prometheus,  Thamuz  or 
Crishna,  was  easily  identified  with  the  person  and  fate  of 
Jesus  ;  and  by  a  novel  method  of  expounding  Scriptures 
the  suffering  Messiah  was  discovered  in,  or  rather  uncon- 
sciously imposed  upon,  the  Bible.     So  the  disciples  over- 
came, among  themselves  at  least,   tLe  vexation   growing 
out  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus.     The  door  once 
opened  to  an  exegese  independent  of  grammar  and  the  kin- 
dred sciences,   it  was  extremely  easy  to  find    types  and 
tropes  in  Scriptures  applicable  to  Jesus.     The  Psalms  and 
Prophets  are  full  of  plaintive  effusions  which  might  be  ap- 
plied to  any  unfortunate  man  as   well  as  to  Jesus.     The 
whole  history  of  Israel  is  one  long  tragedy  in  the  world's 
drama.      Every   unsuccessful  philanthropist    and    every 
martyr  has  his  prototype    in    Hebrew    Scriptures.     This 
system,  initiated  by  the  disciples  and  continued  by  Paul, 
became   the  standing  exegese  of  the   Church.     So,  grad- 
ually, events  from  the  life  of  Jesus  were  expounded  to 
fulfill  Scriptures,  and  scriptural  tropes  were  changed  into 
events  and  added  to  the  life  of  .Jesus.     So,  colored  and 
enlarged,  the  story  reached  the  evangelists    in   the    sec- 
ond century,  who  wrote  it,  eac-h  from  his  own  standpoint 
and  in  the  sense  of  his  respective  church. 

These  same  scriptural  passages,  if  analyzed  by  the  light 
of  criticism,  as  was  done  by  Ibn  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Gesenius, 
Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  other  eminent  scholars,  bear  not  the 
least  relation  to  Jesus  and  his  fate ;  and  those  critics 
did  undoubtedly  understand  the  Bible  better  than  the 
fishermen  of  Galilee  did,  who  had  not  the  remotest  idea 
of  grammar,  philology,  history,  or  archeology.  The  fifty- 


Tin:  n;r<  IFIXION.  125 

third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  for  instanee,  which  was  writ- 
ten about  ;VJ.~)  p..  c.,  and  is  an  address  <>i'  consolation  to 
the  then  suffering  people  of  Israel  under  (  'amhyses,  or 
pseudo  SmA'dis,  has  not  the  lea>t  relation  to  .Ji-us  and 
his  fate.  It  merely  announces  what  kin^s  in  after-times, 
will  say  of  downtrodden  Israel,  when  at  last  truth,  jus- 
ti  e,  and  freedom  will  triumph  by  Israel's  consistency  and 
adherence  to  God's  truth,  under  painful  sufferings.  But 
aside  of  all  this,  Israel,  the  nation  of  the  Book,  who  suf- 
fered thousand-fold  martyrdom  for  the  Bible,  of  whose 
mind  it  was  produced,  and  to  whose  reason  it  was  ad- 
dressed, ought  to  understand  that  book.  This  might  be 
palely  admitted.  But  Israel  unanimously  declare*,  there 
is  no  reference  in  the  Bible  to  Jesus  or  his  fate.  There 
is  no  trace  in  Scriptures  of  any  suffering  Messiah. 

We  believe  to  have  succeeded  in  showing,  anyhow,  that 
all  those  scriptural  passages  admit  of  another  construc- 
tion. Hence  two  things  must  be  proved,  viz.,  that  the 
evangelical  construction  is  correct,  and  that  the  events  ac- 
tually transpired,  exactly  as  the  evangelists  maintain  they 
did  ;  neither  of  which  has  ever  been  done,  and  in  our 
estimation  it  can  not  be  done.  Therefore  the  scriptural 
argument  has  not  the  least  weight  with  the  critical  reader, 
who  can  see  in  the  crucifixion  story  no  more  than  a  piece 
of  sacred  poetry  in  prose,  composed  with  the  avowed  in- 
tention of  imitating  biblical  tropes  and  changing  them 
into  alleged  facts. 

XII.      THE   TRUE   STORY. 

In  the  face  of  the  arguments  produced,  the  crucifixion 
story  can  not  be  upheld  as  a  historical  fact.  There  exists, 
certainly,  no  rational  ground  whatever  for  the  belief  that 
the  affair  took  place  in  the  manner  as  the  evangelists  de- 
scribed it.  All  that  can  be  saved  of  the  whole  story  is, 
that  after  Jesus  had  answered  the  first  question  before 
Pilate,  viz.,  "  Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews?"  which  it 
is  natural  to  suppose  he  was  asked,  and  also  this  can  be 
supposition  only,  he  was  given  over  to  the  Roman  sol- 
diers to  be  disposed  of  as  fast  as  possible,  before  his  ad- 
mirers and  followers  could  come  to  his  rescue,  or  any  de- 
monstration in  his  favor  could  have  been  made.  He  was 
captured  in  the  night  as  quietly  as  possible,  was  guarded 
in  some  place,  probably  in  the  high-priest's  court,  com- 
pletely secluded  from  the  eyes  of  the  populace,  and  early 


126  THE  TRUE   STORY. 

in  the  morning  he  was  brought  before  Pilate  as  cautiously 
and  as  quietly  as  it  could  be  done,  and  on  his  command, 
disposed  of  by  the  soldiers  as  fast  as  practicable,  and  in 
a  manner  not  known  to  the  people.  All  this  was  done 
most  likely  while  the  multitude  worshiped  on  Mount  Mo- 
riah,  and  nobody  had  an  omen  of  the  tragical  end  of  the 
man  of  Nazareth.  There  may  havn  and  there  may  not 
have  been  before  the  gubernatorial  palace  a  crowd  to  de- 
mand the  release  of  Barabbas,  since  neither  that  name 
nor  that  custom  is  known  in  Jewish  history ;  but  they 
had  certainly  nothing  to  do  with  Jesus  or  his  fate.  It  is 
possible  enough  that  in  the  afternoon  the  dead  body  of 
Jesus,  on  a  tree  or  a  cross,  or  otherwise,  was  exposed  to 
the  gaze  of  the  multitude,  to  mortify  the  Jews  who  were 
ready  to  accept  him  as  the  Messiah  ;  to  deride  the  others 
by  the  label,  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  Ki>  g  of  the  Jews  ;"  and 
to  make  sure  against  every  possible  outbreak  and  demon- 
stration in  his  behalf;  but  we  have  no  documents  before 
us  to  establish  this  as  an  unquestionable  fact.  The  disci- 
ples who  fled  so  confusedly  when  Jesus  was  arrested,  were 
certainly  not  present  when  he  was  tried,  condemned,  and 
executed.  There  could  have  been  very  few  persons  present  at 
those  scenes,  as  secrecy  was  dictated  by  prudence.  There- 
fore, right  at  the  start  the  stories  of  his  end  may  have 
been  variously  reported  and  told  retrospectively  by  dif- 
ferent parties  as  they  thought  the  events  might  have  oc- 
curred. Some  said  he  was  crucified;  others  thought  he 
was  hung  to  a  tree  ;  and  others  again  said  he  did  not  die 
at  all.  Gradually,  the  voice  of  Paul  established  the 
crucifixion,  and  the  Bible  passages  were  applied  to  dress 
up  a  new  story,  as  wanted  for  the  Gentile  and  especially 
the  Roman  ear. 

XIII.      VICARIOUS   ATONEMENT. 

But  be  all  this  as  it  may,  Jesus  had  carried  out  his  res- 
olution. He  had  laid  down  his  life  for  the  lives  of  his 
disciples  and  all  the  other  people  who  might  have  been  mas- 
sacred in  the  contemplated  demonstration  in  his  favor. 
He  was  a  martyr,  although  not  in  the  sense  as  Christian 
dogmatics  construe  it ;  yet  he  was  a  martyr  who  elicits 
admiration.  Unable  to  carry  out  the  original  plan — the 
restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  Israel — and  see- 
ing his  followers  and  admirers  rushing  heedlessly  into  a 
wad  scheme  of  rebellion,  he  laid  down  his  life  heroically 


THE   CRUCIFIXION.  127 

for  his  friends  and  countrymen.  His  immediate  disciples 
and  followers  never  speak  of  Jesus'  martyrdom  otherwise 
than  "  He  who  hath  laid  down  his  life  for  us;"  or  '*  He 
\vhodied  for  us;"  or"  He  who  mi  tiered  lor  us."  They 
never  extend  the  signification  of  his  suffering  and  death 
beyond  the  immediate  circle  of  his  diseiples,  for  whose 
Me  he  had  laid  down  his  own.  Peter,  according  to  the 
genuinely  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees,  admonished 
his  brethren  to  repentance  of  sin,  because  the  righteous 
man  was  so  suddenly  snatched  away  from  their  midst, 
and  in  order  to  hasten  the  approach  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  which,  he  surely  expected,  Jesus  would  establish 
yet,  and  to  this  end  return  from  the  realm  of  death,  But 
he  had  not  the  remotest  idea  of  vicarious  atonement. 

Paul  preached  denationalized  Judaism,  and  turned  his- 
torical events  into  religious  topics.  80  David,  Solomon, 
and  other  kings  of  Judah  became  saints,  and  the  king  of 
the  Jews  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God.  Jesus,  the  pro- 
claimed Messiah,  was  turned  into  a  son  of  David  for  Jews, 
and  a  son  of  God  for  Gentiles,  The  political  fabric  of  the 
Hebrew  people,  called  in  the  theocratic  style  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  was  changed  into  a  theological  tiction  under 
the  rule  of  the  dead  Jesus.  The  spiritual  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  which  the  original  apostles  taught,  was  transformed 
into  a  bodily  resurrection  for  the  benefit  of  heathens  with 
gross  conceptions  of  spirit  and  God.  The  last  supper  of 
Jesus  became  a  sacrament.  So  also  the  martyrdom  of 
Jesus  was  turned  to  general  use.  He  had  died  for  all 
who  did  or  will  believe  in  him,  Paul  maintained;  his 
death  is  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all,  also  the  uncon- 
verted relatives  of  those  who  believed  in  him.  It  was  a 
theological  exposition  of  the  event  on  the  part  of  Paul, 
of  which  nobody  else  had  any  knowledge.  Christendom 
has  accepted  the  dogma  on  the  wisdom  and  integrity  of 
Paul.  Jesus  and  his  immediate  disciples  had  no  knowledge 
of  vicarious  atonement.  All  that  can  be  discovered  in 
the  sources  is  that  Jesus  has  laid  down  his  life  for  the 
lives  of  his  immediate  disciples,  friends,  and  countrymen, 
without  any  reference  to  other  people,  to  any  future  life 
or  happiness,  to  any  new  doctrine  or  dogma.  By  the  in- 
fluence of  Paul,  the  vicarious  atonement  was  imposed 
upon  the  Gospel.  It  was  a  considerable  step  in  advance  on 
the  heathen  conceptions  and  institutions  of  atonement, 
much  more  rational  and  humane  than  theirs ;  but  it  was 


128  VICARIOUS   ATONEMENT. 

a  mere  substitute,  far  behind   the   rational  doctrine  of  the 
prophet  (Isaiah,  Iv.  6,  7)  : 

Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found  ;  call  ye  upon  him 
while  he  is  near. 

Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his 
thoughts :  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have 
mercy  upon  him  ;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon. 

Paul  was  a  wise  man,  no  doubt.  He  dealt  with  Pa- 
gans according  to  their  mental  or  moral  abilities.  He 
took  away,  he  gave,  he  reformed  and  remodeled  existing 
elements  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  in  order  to  impress 
them  with  the  religious  idea.  To  him,  the  Son  of  God 
was  no  more  than  the  incarnate  symbol  of  the  religious 
idea.  Since  the  Pagans  could  not  reach  the  Father  (mono- 
theism) in  his  absolute  spirituality,  he  led  them  to  the  Fa- 
ther through  the  Son,  viz.,  the  incarnate  and  accommodated 
religious  idea.  Therefore,  it  gave  him  no  particular  trou- 
ble to  change  and  amend  stories  and  incidents,  as  he  could 
best  use  them  for  his  higher  aims.  Still,  he  made  one 
great  mistake.  He  thought  all  would  be  redeemed  by  the 
Son,  or  the  religious  idea ;  and  when  all  was  accomplished 
the  Son  would  return  the  government  to  the  Father,  and 
God  be  again  all  in  all.  In  our  modern  and  sober  phras- 
eology this  signifies,  the  religious  idea  should  redeem  the 
human  family  from  all  prevailing  siufulness  and  misery, 
and  restore  the  dominion  of  truth  and  righteousness. 
But  we,  who  have  eighteen  centuries  of  history  behind  us, 
know  that  this  is  a  mistake.  The  human  family  has  not 
been  redeemed  by  the  Son.  The  religious  idea  is  one  fac- 
tor in  the  world's  history,  and  the  Daughter,  Sophia,  Wis- 
dom, the  progress  of  learning,  science,  philosophy,  inven- 
tion, and  culture,  is  another  and  very  powerful  factor  of 
history,  a  redeeming  agency,  against  which  Paul  and  his 
compatriots  declared  war.  This  was  his  mistake.  There- 
fore the  Christian  story,  with  the  dogmatism  based  upon 
it,  held  out  so  long.  All  dominion  was  given  to  the  Son 
and  none  to  the  Daughter.  So  the  Son  was  degraded  to 
superstition  and  fanaticism,  and  Minerva  occupies  a  hos- 
tile position  toward  Adonis.  The  next  reformatory  step 
must  be  to  overcome  that  hostility  by,  doing  away  with 
gods  and  goddesses,  symbols  and  dogmas,  incarnation  and 
accommodation,  to  exhibit  clearly  and  logically  the  unity 
of  the  religious  and  philosophical  ideas  as  one  truth, 
which  is  the  redeemer  of  man.  Many  stories,  legends,  myths, 


THE    CEIICIFIXION.  J2g 

|al,l,s   ami  minri,,  ,,,,,,,  I,,  I,,',  I,,.,,;,,,,.      Uk).    , 

tfan  si,,,,.,  they  ,,,„„,„  1,,.  saved  .  lll(.v  ,„.,„  J£ 

"MT  all(1  """•'•  <-l"l«llil<-  generations.  Many  dootoina 
dogmas  8u™-8titions,  and  pnjndic,,  will  baveto  beS 
come.  Like  Christology,  thev  hav,,  >,„„,  andean  the 

'•>mv,n    -I   Brow,,,,;   philosophy.      But  th,   ,-,,„„,,     I 
iberated  n  ^.ms  „!,,,,  in  unison  ami  harmony  wit       I 
I..-I.I.V  ami  l,-M.h.  u-,)l  redeem  the  human  fa.nilv    Tl  is 
I'-'f'l.y   tl«.    ,n,,st  oxal(c,l  faith    and   the  most  iv!  '±  s" 
sta,,,l,,o,nt  „    n.t.Ih^u  men.     The  vicarious  atonem  ',t 
»f      aul  8y,,,lH,l,x.«  tlmt  sins  are  overcome  and 


XIV.     THE   JEWS   DID    NOT   CRUCIFY    JESUS. 

One  of  the  falsehoods  to  be  erased  from  the  memory  of 
hristendom  f     the  gake  flf  tfuth          fcW 


r      U      t  hl  -the  ^ws  crucifie 

I».     What  hell  could  invent  of  fiendish  torments  and 
diabolic  scorns  was  employed   in   Christendom      o  m  a"  e 
the  Jew   miserable  with  Christian  love.     Every    a  " 
imbecile,  or  robber  assumed   the  right  to  trample       d 
jpit  upon  the  Jew.     Every  crazy  priest  has  a  doTr  in< 
hand  to  justify  those  barbarous  outrages  as   tX 
work  of  Providence.      Every  smooth-faced  hypcS" 
sorrowful,  bigot  in  our  days  has  something  hffi?hiS 
heart  against  the  Jew  who  killed  Christ  ;  af  thoSh  th, 
few  persons  described   in  the  New  Testament  ill  be?n 
th«  Hebrew  people,  or  it  was  anybody's  fault  now  tha 
a  man  was  killed  eighteen  centuries  ago.     So  tenlcioi 
however,  and  unreasoning  is  fanaticism,  that  it  must  be 
burnt  out  of  the  soul  to  be  overcome.     As  Ion.  as  that 
-MU-CC  of  hatred  exists  in  Christendom,  Christianity  is 

'  S  of'  n  a  misfort'ine  for  weePin«  «"SSJ? 

A.-.d-of  all   our  arguments,  the   Academy  of  France 

as  fully  en  ,  tied  to  do  as  was  done,  viz.,  to  declared 

the  Jews  did  not  crucify  Jesus;  for  the  evangelists    ay 

plainly,  the  Roman  soldiers  crucified  him.     Jffor  ar^y 

ment's  sake  we  admit  Jesus  was  crucified,  which  none  fan 


130  THE    JEWS   DID    SOT   CRUCIFY    JESUS. 

establish  satisfactorily,  we  can  only  maintain  it  on  the  au- 
thority of  Mark,  and  Mark  narrates  the  Romans  and  not 
the  Jews  crucified  Jesus.  We  open  the  gospel  of  Mark 
and  read  from  the  fifteenth  chapter  this: 

"  And  the  soldiers  led  him  away  into  the  hall  called  Pretorium  ; 
and  they  called  together  the  whole  band.  And  they  clothed  him 
with  purple,  and  platted  a  crown  of  thorns,  and  put  it  about  his 
head,  and  began  to  salute  him,  Hail,  King  of  the  Jews !  And 
they  smote  him  on  the  head  with  a  reed,  and  did  spit  upon  him, 
and  bowing  their  knees  worshiped  him.  And  when  they  had 
mocked  him,  they  took  off  the  purple  from  him,  and  put  his  own 
clothes  on  him,  and  led  him  out  to  crucify  him.  And  they  compel 
one  Simon,  a  Cyrenian,  who  passed  by,  coming  out  of  the  coun- 
try, the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus,  to  bear  his  cross.  And 
they  bring  him  unto  the  place  Golgotha,  which  is,  being  interpre- 
ted* The  place  of  a  skull.  And  they  gave  him  to  drink  wine 
mingled  with  myrrh :  but  he  received  it  not.  And  when  they  had 
crucified  him,  they  parted  his  garments,  casting  lots  upon  them 
what  every  man  should  take.  And  it  was  the  third  hour,  and 
they  crucified  him." 

No  sane  reader  finds  in  these  words  a  Jew.  The  Ro- 
man  soldiers  on  command  of  Pilate  accomplish  the  whole 
feat.  Matthew  (xxvii.  27)  tells  the  same  story  precisely, 
also  exonerating  the  Jews  entirely.  It  appears,  from  a 
close  inspection  of  Luke,  that  he  also  did  mean  to  say  as 
his  predecessors,  the  Romans  and  not  the  Jews  crucified 
.Jesus.  He  narrates  (xxiii.  27),  "  And  as  they  led  him 
away,"  etc.,  which  leaves  it  undecided  who  led  him  away, 
Jews  or  Romans.  But  he  goes  on  in  the  narrative  and 
always  uses  the  infinite  "  they,"  for  the  same  band  of  per- 
sons who  crucified  Jesus  and  the  two  thieves,  and  divided 
among  themselves  the  clothes  of  Jesus.  These  were  evi- 
dently no  Jews  ;  for,  if  they  from  sheer  fanaticism  had 
degraded  themselves  to  the  bloody  executioners  of  Rome, 
in  crucifying  Jesus,  they  certainly  would  not  have  cruci- 
fied the  two  thieves,  who,  if  really  executed,  were  mur- 
dered in  defiance  of  law,  and  against  the  popular  will. 
Besides,  the  same  persons  who  crucified  Jesus  also  divid- 
ed his  garments  among  themselves ;  and  turning  over  to 
John  (xix.  23),  we  are  told  plainly,  "  Then  the  soldiers, 
when  they  had  crucified  Jesus,  took  his  garments  and 
made  four  parts,  to  every  soldier  a  part ;  and  also  his 
coat,"  etc.,  informing  us  plainly  not  only  that  those  who 
divided  the  garments  among  themselves,  but  also  those 
who  crucified  Jesus,  were  four  Roman  soldiers.  He  also 
informs  us  that  the  priests  protested  against  the  super- 


TIM-;  OBUCIFES  [OK.  l;;i 

sc.-iption,  ".IcsusMfXa/nvth.  King  of  the  Jews,-"  bm  Pi- 
late answered, "  What  J  have  written,  I   have  writti 
(John,  x,x.  22).     If  Jews  badorucified  Jesus,  this  suDer- 
iption,  which  was  intended  to  their  chagrin,  Would  cer- 
tainly n,,t  have  been  fhstencd  tO  the  cross.      Therefore  the 

direct  statements  of  the  gospels  are,  the  Romans  crucified 

Lhe  park  of  howling  fanatics  who  still  cry  at  the 
iK-elsot  the  Jew,  "Christ  Killer,-  have  yet  to  learn  to 
read  and  understand  the  gospels  correctly.  ('„„„;„„. 
wickedness  and  furious  fanaticism,  for  centuries  Of  ghostlV 
darkness,  raised  the  bloody  cry,  the  Jews  crucified  Jesus- 
blind  ignorance  and  servile  obedience  re-echoed  the  un- 
reasoning howl  at  carnivals  of  madness,  to  oppress  exile 
persecute-,  plunder  and  slaughter.  Shame,  burning  shame' 
on  priests  and  mobs  of  the  past  who  used  this  barbarous 
war-cry  in  defiance  of  humanity;  thousandfold  shame  on 
modern  priests  and  preachers  who  still  unblushing  pro- 
claim this  infamous  lie,  not  only  in  d.efknce  of  the  Gos- 
pel, but  also  of  truth,  humanity,  and  religion.  They  ou«-nt 
»  be  dnven  from  the  pulpits  of  every  civilized  commun- 
ity, and  sent  to  savages  whose  conceptions  of  religion  are 
as  narrow  as  their  own. 


THE   CONCLUSION. 


The  martyrdom  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  has  been  grate- 
fully acknowledged  bv  his  disciples  whose  lives  he  Led 
by  he  sacrifice  of  his  own,  and  by  their  friends  who 
won  d  have  fallen  by  the  score  had  he  not  prevented  tie 
rebellion  ripe  at  Jerusalem.  Posterity  infatuated  with  Pa- 
gan apotheosis  made  of  that  simple  martyrdom  a  big  bub- 
>.e  colored  with  the  myths  of  resurrection  and  ascension 
to  that  very  heaven  which  the  telescope  has  ™t  o 
jnan's  way.  The  simple  fact  has  been  Lade  tht  fol  da- 
nnof  a  novel  myth :  to  suit  the  gross  conceptions  ot  e  - 
H-atlens.  Modern  theology  understanding  well  enough 
that  the  myth  can  not  be  saved,  seeks  refugl  in  tl  e  ^ 
ness  and  self-denial  of  the  man  who  die<f  W  „,  \^  "  s" 
tl;ou,h  ,e,us  had  been  the  only  man  who  dwft^ 
i«-a.  Fhousands,  tens  of  thousands  of  Jews  ChristTanl 
Mohannne<lans,  and  Heathens,  have  died  iu  id  •!  1 

i;:;n.;;;  d! ;('inn(Te  ™y™^  ^.*~£&ai 

Heil?v^adya»ced  anything  new  to  die  for 

He  was  not  accused  of  saying  or  teaching  anything  or£ 


132  THE   CONCLUSION. 

nal.  Nobody  has  ever  been  able  to  discover  anything 
new  and  original  in  the  gospels.  He  died  to  save  the 
lives  of  his  friends,  and  this  is  much  more  meritorious  in 
our  estimation  than  if  he  had  died  for  a  questionable  idea. 
But  then  the  whole  fabric  of  vicarious  atonement  is  de- 
molished, which  reason  does  anyhow,  and  modern  theol- 
ogy can  not  get  over  the  absurdity  that  the  Almighty 
Lord  of  the  universe,  the  infinite  and  eternal  Cause  of  all 
causes,  had  to  kill  some  innocent  fellow  in  order  to  be  rec- 
onciled to  the  human  beings.  However  abstractly  they 
speculate  arid  subtilize,  there  is  always  an  undigested 
bone  of  man -god,  god-man,  and  vicarious  atonement  in 
the  theological  stomach.  Therefore  theology  appears  so 
ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  modern  philosophy.  The  theo- 
logical speculation  can  not  go  far  enough  to  hold  pace 
with  modern  astronomy.  However  nicely  the  idea  may 
be  dressed,  the  great  God  of  the  immense  universe  looks 
too  small  upon  the  cross  of  Calvary  ;  and  the  human 
family  is  too  large,  has  too  numerous  virtues  and  vices,  to 
be  perfectly  represented  by,  and  dependent  on,  one  rabbi 
of  Galilee.  Speculate  as  they  may,  one  way  or  another, 
they  must  connect  the  Eternal  and  the  fate  of  the  human 
family  with  the  person  and  fate  of  Jesus.  That  is  the 
very  thing  which  deprives  Jesus  of  his  crown  of  martyr- 
dom, and  brings  religion  in  perpetual  conflict  with  philos- 
ophy. It  is  not  the  religious  idea  which  was  crucified  in 
Jesus  and  resurrected  with  him  as  with  all  its  martyrs ; 
although  his  belief  in  immortality  may  have  strengthened 
him  in  the  agony  of  death.  It  was  the  idea  of  duty  to  his 
disciples  and  friends  which  led  him  to  the  realms  of 
death.  This  deserves  admiration,  but  no  more.  It  dem- 
onstrates the  nobility  of  human  nature,  but  proves  noth- 
ing in  regard  to  providence,  or  the  providential  scheme 
of  government. 

The  Christian  story,  as  the  gospels  narrate  it,  is  a. big 
bubble.  You  approach  it  critically  and  it  bursts.  Dog- 
matic Christology  built  upon  it  is  a  paper  balloon  kept 
afloat  by  gas.  All  so-called  lives  of  Christ,  or  biogra- 
phies of  Jesus,  are  works  of  fiction,  erected  by  imagina- 
tion on  the  shifting  foundation  of  meager  and  unreliable 
records.  There  are  very  lew  passages  in  the  gospels 
which  can  stand  the  rigid  application  of  honest  criticism. 
Therefore,  Schleiermachcr's  "  Keligion  of  Christ/'  or 
rather  the  religion  based  upon  the  life  of  Jesus,  is  no  less 


Tin-:  riaviFixioN.  133 


the  work  of  phantasy  than  tho  orthodox  dogmatism. 
Philosophy  and  science  have  oven-nine  the  latter,  and 
criticism  has  made  impossible  the  1  nner.  In  modern 

science  and   philosophy,  orthodox  (  bristology   is  out  of 

(liiestion.  Nobody  attempts  any  longer  to  save  a  mere 
shade  thereof.  The  ghost  lias  returned  to  Hades.  In  mod- 
ern criticism,  :;s  this  our  last  and  probahly  nl>o  h-a>t  con- 
tribution shows,  the  Gospel  sources  became  so  utterly 
worthless  and  unreliable  that  it  takes  more  than  ordinary 
faith  to  believe  that  any  portion  thereof  is  at  all  true. 
The  eueharist  was  not  established  by  Jesus,  and  can  not 
be  called  a  sacrament.  The  trials  of  Jesus  are  positively 
not  true  :  they  are  pure  inventions.  The  crucifixion  story 
as  narrated  is  certainly  not  true,  and  it  is  extremely  dif- 
ficult to  save  the  bare  fact  that  Jesus  was  crucified.  What 
can  the  critic  do  with  books  in  which  a  few  facts  must  be 
ingeniously  guessed  from  under  the  mountain  of  ghost- 
stories,  childish  miracles,  and  dogmatic  tendencies?  It  is 
absurd  to  expect  of  him  to  regard  them  as  sources  of  re- 
ligious instruction,  in  preference  of  any  other  mytholo- 
gies and  legends.  All  the  religious  precepts  expressed  in 
the  gospels,  and  a  good  many  more,  are  derived  from  the 
Old  Testament,  and  systematically  compiled  in  the  au- 
thor's "  Judaism  :  its  Doctrines  and  Duties/'  without  any 
{Satan,  ghost-  stories,  miracles,  and  improbabilities.  Hence, 
we  have  a  perfect  right  to  expect  of  all  readers  the  ac- 
knowledgment that  our  book  is  superior  to  the  gospels  ; 
nevertheless  we  do  not  expect  to  be  considered  a  superior 
mortal.  We  challenge  all  orthodoxy  to  produce  from  the 
gospels  any  sound,  humane,  and  universal  doctrine  not 
contained  in  our  "Judaism,"  etc.;  still  we  know  that  we 
are  no  special  son  of  God.  What  good  will  books  with 
Satan,  ghost-stories,  miracles,  and  improbabilities  do  us, 
iroiii  the  religious  standpoint,  if  an  ordinary  mortal  like 
this  author  can  write  a  better  book  on  religion  without 
i  hat  incumbrance  on  reason  '!  That  is  the  point  where 
modern  critics  arrived,  therefore  the  gospels  have  become 
books  for  the  museum  and  the  archaeologist,  for  students 
of  mythology  and  ancient  literature.  The  spirit  of  dog- 
matic Christology  hovers  still  over  a  portion  of  eivili/ed 
society,  in  antic  organizations,  disciplines,  and  hereditary 
forms  of  faith  and  worship;  in  science  and  philosophy, 
and  in  the  realm  of  criticism,  its  day  is  past.  The  univer- 


134  THE    CONCLUSION. 

sal,  religious,  and  ethical  element  of  Christianity  has  no 
connection  whatever  with  Jesus  or  his  apostles,  with  the 
Gospel  or  the  Gospel  story  ;  it  exists  independent  of  any 
person  or  story.  Therefore  it  needs  neither  the  Gospel 
story  nor  its  heroes.  In  the  common  acceptation  of  the 
terms,  one  can  be  a  good  Christian  without  the  slightest 
belief  in  Jesus  or  the  gospels.  It  is  useless  for  us,  who 
are  men  and  thinkers,  to  deceive  ourselves  and  others — 
nay,  it  is  immoral  to  do  it.  In  this  third  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century  the  intelligence  believes  no  longer  in 
Jesus  or  the  gospels,  although  faint  shadows  thereof  still 
hover  .on  the  imagination  of  unclear  and  undecided  think- 
ers. As  it  was  at  the  end  of  Roman  Paganism,  so  it  is 
now;  the  masses  are  deceived  and  fooled,  or  do  it  for 
themselves,  and  persons  of  vivacious  phantasies  prefer 
the  masquerade  of  delusion  to  the  simple  sublimity  of  ma- 
jestic but  naked  truth.  Therefore  fanaticism  is  in  the  mi- 
nority and  without  energy,  so  that  the  Church  is  subjected 
to  the  State,  in  Berlin  and  in  Rome.  The  decline  of  the 
Church  as  a  political  power  proves  beyond  a  doubt  the  de- 
cline of  Christian  faith.  The  conflicts  of  Church  and 
State  all  over  the  European  continent,  and  the  hostility 
between  intelligence  and  dogmatic  Christianity,  demon- 
strate the  deaih  of  Christology  in  the  consciousness  of 
modern  culture.  It  is  useless  to  shut  our  eyes  to  these 
facts.  Like  rabbinical  Judaism,  dogmatic  Christianity 
was  the  product  of  ages  without  typography,  telescopes, 
microscopes,  telegraphs,  and  the  power  of'  steam.  These 
right  arms  of  intelligence  have  fought  the  titanic  battles, 
conquered  and  demolished  the  ancient  castles,  and  remove 
now  the  debris,  preparing  the  ground  upon  which  there 
shall  be  reared  the  gorgeous  temple  of  humanity,  one  uni- 
versal republic,  one  universal  religion  of  intelligence, 
and  one  great  universal  brotherhood.  This  is  the  new 
covenant,  the  gospel  of  humanity  and  reason. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION ^DEPARTMENT 


202  Main  Librar 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 


HOME  USE 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


ALL  BOOKb  IVIMT    DC  H.CV.™ 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date 


Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


®s 


